Re: CSV (NBB, SPF incorporation of HELO check)
2004-06-20 18:18:22
"Matthew" == Matthew Elvey <matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com> writes:
>> It's an interesting idea; do you know if an ID is forthcoming?
Matthew> The latest I-D is dated May '04, and doesn't reflect this
Matthew> "Unified SPF". We'll see if it's in SenderID, which is
Matthew> what the SPF - CID merger effort is being called, I
Matthew> think. This thread makes me think it will.
If the name SenderID refers to draft-ietf-marid-core (which was my
assumption) then it's clearly not in -00. If it refers to something
else, then until and unless that proposal is submitted to this WG then
I would guess this is probably the wrong forum to discuss it further.
>> I'm dead against that.
>>
Matthew> That was clear.
No doubt :-) Still, it's good to state one's position as precisely as
possible for the benefit of clarity of discussion...
Actually, on reflection I'd like to make one further point:
I strongly believe that this point shouldn't be glossed over by any
MARID standard. You asked a couple of messages back what I think of
proposals that implicitly suggest blackholing messages. I think
ambiguity like that would be the worst possible outcome for MARID. If
MARID is going to fundamentally change this (or any other) long
established principle of Internet e-mail then it needs to be upfront
about it.
I'll go further and suggest that MARID needs to do one of the
following: either
1. Make it clear that all mail that's not accepted MUST be rejected
at SMTP time or bounced to the MAIL FROM where possible (as per
existing RFCs); or
2. Explicitly update RFC2821 6.1
Even a change from MUST to SHOULD (which would seem entirely
reasonable to me in the context of MARID) is a change to RFC2821 and
should be documented as such.
But having a MARID RFC that is inconsistent with RFC2821 (without
updating it) would seem be be unhelpful... Having one that is
implicitly so, even more so...
-roy
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: CSV, NBB, (continued)
- Re: CSV, NBB, Matthew Elvey
- Re: CSV, NBB, Roy Badami
- Re: CSV, NBB, Roy Badami
- Re: CSV, NBB, Matthew Elvey
- Re: CSV, NBB, Roy Badami
- Re: CSV (NBB, SPF incorporation of HELO check), Matthew Elvey
- Re: CSV (NBB, SPF incorporation of HELO check),
Roy Badami <=
- Re: CSV, NBB, Dave Crocker
- Re: CSV specification revision available, John Leslie
- Re: CSV specification revision available, Dave Crocker
- Re: CSV specification revision available, Tony Finch
Re: CSV specification revision available, Tony Finch
|
|
|