ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2005-01-29 12:03:18

In <8617533D-7210-11D9-9CD0-000D9358DFD8(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> Andrew Newton 
<andy(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> writes:

On Jan 29, 2005, at 12:32 AM, wayne wrote:
For
some strange reason, the IETF is now considering the SenderID drafts
that still use the same records.  Go figure.

If by same records, you mean anything TXT then I'm afraid you will
have to live with that... and any other new uses for TXT that come
along.

Nope, I see no problem with using TXT RRs.  (The same goes for CSV's
use of SRV records or MAPS's use of A records.)

So, not rubber-stamping SPF wasn't a problem.  Creating a new spec
that changed the semantics of SPF records was.

But I suppose you mean the v=spf1 records and agree that you have a
point.... which is not what I thought you were saying.  Sorry for
jumping to conclusions.

Actually, reviewing things, I shouldn't have jumped so hard on MARID
changing things.  When MARID decided to do a design-by-committee of a
new system, rarely a wise idea, it didn't change the SPF-classic
specifications.  New systems don't have backward compatibility
problems.

The real problem was that the draft-lentczner-spf-00 I-D did not
eliminate all the incompatibilities that the MARID SenderID I-Ds
created.  Hence the creation of draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.


-wayne