Several items:
-= 1 =-
Someone asked for an example of a single record that works for both
scopes:
spf2.0/pra,mailfrom +mx -all
-= 2 =-
Yes, scopes would need an IANA registry. I would suggest that it needs
to be limited in the greatest possible way (like amended only by a
working group draft - anyone know language for this? an existing
example of such a registry? -- e-mail me off-list.)
-= 3 =-
Please note that the Classic SPF's use of the HELO/EHLO domain when the
reverse-path is null does not constitute a check of the HELO scope
(such as done by SPF/HELO or CSV.) It is constructing what the return
path should be even though the sending MTA has omitted it ("Mail From
<>") to break possible mail loops. It is still checking the envelope
concept of "Mail From". It is not making any assertions about the
HELO/EHLO domain as used by a SMTP client.
-= 4 =-
I would not support a HELO scope for the same reasons mentioned by
others. In particular, 1) CSV is this group's next agenda item, 2) The
full syntax of SPF records is totally unwarranted for HELO checks (you
only need "+a -all" and "-all".) 3) One generally never publishes
records about HELO at the same domain name as MAIL FROM or PRA. Hence
they'd never share a record.
-= 5 =-
As per my discussion in prior messages, the scope macro doesn't buy
much. I am not in favor of it, though not strongly.
- Mark
Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
markl(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com