In <C41E8F99-01CC-11D9-9A6B-000A95B3BA44(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> Andrew Newton
<andy(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> writes:
On Sep 8, 2004, at 1:20 PM, wayne wrote:
Are you saying that, by adding the mailfrom scope, you think that the
marid-pra I-D can/should advance? If so, I strongly disagree with
this position.
Yes. And I'm confused as to why you would disagree, even if you do
not intend to do PRA checking. There is no IPR issue with publishing
both a PRA and MAIL FROM scope, just checking the PRA scope. So even
though you have no intention to do it, why would you insist that other
should not?
Publishing SPF records with PRA information has never been a problem
for me (and I think for most others).
The problem is the PRA can not be implemented in most F/OSS MTAs and
spam filters. The PRA is an 2822 identity, which does not cover the
same problem space as the 2821.MAILFROM. The suggestion of using
2821.MAILFROM to get around the SenderID patent mess is like
suggesting using DES to get around the RSA patent mess. Yeah, they
vaguely cover the same general area, but really, they are quite
different.
If you could come up with a proposal that has broad consensus that
covers the 2822 identities, I could see letting both that proposal and
the PRA going forward. However, I don't see any such proposal.
The only two proposals besides the PRA in the area of 2822 that I can
recall are the fetchmail algorithm and and my
marid-schlitt-spf-fromhdr. The fetchmail algorithm use the
Return-Path: header as its primary choice, so it really isn't any more
of a 2822 identity than the PRA is a 2821 identity due to SUBMITTER.
The SPF/FROMHDR proposal has not been discussed much at all, due
largely to respect the wishes of the co-chairs not to muddle the
current set of I-Ds.
I can see advancing marid-core and marid-protocol. I can also see
continuing work on the 2821 identities. I can even see taking
another stab at the 2822 identities. I can't see advancing marid-pra.
-wayne