ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: So here it is one year later...

2005-01-27 20:25:53

Douglas Otis wrote:

pobox.com still has the slogan:
  Sender Policy Framework, an essential part of Sender ID.

Yes, the pobox site is not exactly up to date, that's AFAIK on
the "todo" list of the new council.  The new SPF draft is more
important.

it continues to indicate the current SPF draft is:
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/spf/draft-lentczner-spf-00.txt

Meng is one of the 5 SPF council members, they all agree that
the new draft is _the_ draft.  He's also one of the 2 authors.

Mark had no time for this project after draft-lentczner-spf-00,
otherwise there'd be probably three authors of the new draft,
if that's allowed by the IETF and supported by xml2rfc.

 [Sender-ID position]
Quote from this faction:

The majority fraction, if you insist on these political terms.
<http://OpenSPF.org/cgi-bin/openspf_pledge.cgi> counts 129
signatures.  The SPF council was elected by 161 voters.  Not
exactly the same constituency, but roughly the same group of
people.  Finding a better text supported by almost all SPF
"fans" is (or was) also on the "todo" list of the new council.

applying a record against different algorithms than that
intended when published is inherently deleterious

Indeed.

Once again the algorithm changes and still this draft uses
the same labels and record identifiers?  Classic.

This "new" draft is technically nearer to the last pre-MARID
"old" draft than draft-lentczner-spf-00 was.  The latter was a
rather quick hack salvaging all syntax improvements found here
(= mxcomp) after MARID was killed and the old draft expired.

The "new" draft kept these syntactical improvements, removed
some oddities with the handling of errors, and added all things
from the old draft forgotten in draft-lentczer-spf-00.  There
are almost no semantical differences between "old" and "new".

Some of the minor differences between lentczner and new / old
were simply errors, e.g. lentczer would FAIL for a MAIL FROM
domain literal.  While that might be seen as a feature it was a
case of "receiver policy" and not "sender policy", and the new
draft fixed it (back to the state of the old draft).

Only side effects of the MARID disaster, no SPF problem, no new
algorithm, no differences for existing policies.  Only a better
error handling and more restrictive limits for DNS queries, no
substantial changes.
                     Bye, Frank