On 6/20/04 4:11 PM, Roy Badami sent forth electrons to convey:
"Matthew" == Matthew Elvey <matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com> writes:
Matthew> Meng's latest SPF plan (in which he has borrowed my idea
Matthew> of CSV semantics using SPF records) makes it much easier
Matthew> to implement SPF than the plan in the current RFC draft.
Matthew> Implementation of SPF by nearly all legit senders will be
Matthew> much more feasible soon. Yay!
It's an interesting idea; do you know if an ID is forthcoming?
I just posted to spf-discuss for the first time:
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200406/0958.html
I read the thread about this:
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200406/0886.html
The latest I-D is dated May '04, and doesn't reflect this "Unified SPF".
We'll see if it's in SenderID, which is what the SPF - CID merger effort
is being called, I think.
This thread makes me think it will.
I'm hopeful that spf code out there will soon check by default as per
http://spf.pobox.com/slides/unified%20spf/0428.html.
That slide is from the slideshow at
http://spf.pobox.com/slides/unified%20spf/index.html
that Meng pointed me to.
Matthew> I would be interested to hear what others think - should
Matthew> SMTP+SPF receivers reject or discard messages that SPF
Matthew> "fail" (e.g. hit -all, not "error" or "unknown")?
Matthew> (Perhaps it makes sense to reject for a while by default
Matthew> and then sunrise discard as the default.)
I'm dead against that.
That was clear. I'm halfway won over, hence the 'what *others* think'.
I was going to post there about NBB, but am holding off; if no one likes
the idea here, why bring it up there?
I figure we'll hear back after the weekend re.
Dave, John, Doug:
Have you considered and rejected or not considered adding the NBB idea
that I threw out a while back to the CSV spec?