ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Has the IETF dropped the ball?

2005-03-10 12:39:42



SMTP should be "simple", but obviously we are unable to agree
on a concept for MAIL FROM, the 1123 / 2821 fans insist on a
"feature" where the 821 / SPF fans cry "bug".  "Sender-ID" was
a foul compromise, beaten to death from both camps.  I could
live with it if it would only leave v=spf1 alone.

Is this issue really something that must be worked out in a shared standard? Could we not leave it to each competing method exactly which header it chooses for the domain name to authenticate?

No. It's not acceptable for any of these methods to use existing protocol elements in a way that contradicts either their definitions or their use in practice.

If a method abuses an existing protocol or practice, seems to me it will suffer in the competition with other methods that don't. You can be sure the fault will be pointed out by their competitors, and maybe even exaggerated in a FUD campaign.

Please give me an example of something the IETF needs to make a *requirement* for every authentication method.

-- Dave


*************************************************************     *
* David MacQuigg, PhD              * email:  dmq'at'gci-net.com   *  *
* IC Design Engineer               * phone:  USA 520-721-4583  *  *  *
* Analog Design Methodologies                                  *  *  *
*                                  * 9320 East Mikelyn Lane     * * *
* VRS Consulting, P.C.             * Tucson, Arizona 85710        *
*************************************************************     *