In
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)60(_dot_)0505261816300(_dot_)635(_at_)hermes-1(_dot_)csi(_dot_)cam(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
Tony Finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> writes:
On Thu, 26 May 2005, wayne wrote:
These I-Ds also call for a new version number to be used, which is good,
but then these I-Ds say that the new semantics should be applied to
SPFv1 records, which is REALLY bad.
I strongly agree. This makes it impossible to use SPF's baroqueness to
advantage, e.g. by using BATV with stunt DNS servers, and other clever
tricks.
If you agree that this is really bad, I encourage you to tell
iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org about this.
I had placed a warning about these problems in the spf-classic I-D
submitted early this year, but someone took it upon themselves,
without informing either Meng nor me, to remove this warning. In the
lastest SPF-classic I-D, the SPF community came up with what I think
is a nice paragraph on the subject, with an explict reference to just
such stunt DNS server as you describe. (See sections 2.4 and 9.3.1.2)
-wayne