I still fail to see how the identities matter.
All we are doing here is listing the IP addresses of our outgoing
mail servers.
I can be absolutely certain that is all we are doing since that is
all that we will be telling the network admins to do.
The consequence of that is that by applying our knowledge of how the
infrastructure works we can make some deductions.
The SUBMITTER spec means that we can extend the scope of those
deductions further to include RFC 2812.
The forwarding problem means that we can only ever validate the last
link in the chain and that as a result it is only ever possible
to know with certainty that a message is genuine, it is not possible
using the information from Sender-ID ALONE to know that a message is
defnitively fake if it purports to be forwarded.
I think that what we should be doing at this point is discussing
how to express the set of IP addresses. That is the part that has
the impact on what other people do.
The main complaint I and many others have of SPF is that it has
much too much flexibility. Even if you accept the need for
factored records, the macro language is far more powerful than
is necessary for that purpose.
Phill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of wayne
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 3:15 AM
To: IETF MARID WG
Subject: the focus of MARID
In <20040708040003(_dot_)153711710A(_at_)mail(_dot_)nitros9(_dot_)org> "Alan
DeKok"
<aland(_at_)ox(_dot_)org> writes:
My focus in ASRG & here in MARID has been RFC 2821 identities. If
MARID is no longer discussing RFC 2821 identities, then
that's news to
me.
It is my understanding that, according to the MARID charter, the
chairs would choose identities for this working group to focus on, and
other identities would be ruled out of scope. See the MARID
description, paragraph four on:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/marid-charter.html
The identities selected were the 2821 identities, not the 2822
identities. See:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg01161.html
The Sender-ID proposal, for example, deals with the 2821 SUBMITTER
identity, so it is in-scope. (Or, at least that's the explanation
Andy gave me a while back.)
Now, I must admit that I am somewhat confused on this subject. For
example, I seem to recall several hums at the very end of the May
interim meeting that changed the focus from 2821 to 2822, but they
weren't in minutes and others didn't seem to remember such a thing.
Who knows, I could easily be confused on this also.
Speaking of confusing and minutes, I know that draft minutes for the
May Interim meeting were posted to this list, but I don't remember
seeing any final minutes and I can't find them on the MARID charter
web page.
Will minutes be published for the Interim meetings?
-wayne