[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01.txt

2005-05-24 08:50:03

wayne <wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net> wrote:
In <20050523134752(_dot_)GF89934(_at_)verdi> John Leslie 
<john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net> writes:

There is an explicit recommendation that domains publish "... -all":
I recommend changing that. Instead, I strongly urge that levels of
disclaiming be defined from the very outset of RFC publication:

Like many subjects related to SPF, this has been hotly debated more
than once.  There is a whole section on forwarding, along with other
problems faced by people using SPF.  I do not think your suggests are
accurate.  In particular, if you use SES, forwarding does not break
with -all.  

   I think we may need to explore this last claim: that forwarding does
not break "if you use SES".

   SPF proposes to be a cooperation between SPF publishers and receiving
SMTP servers. Alas, if _both_ of these used SES -- indeed even if all
sending SMTP servers operated by the domain of the SPF publisher used
SES -- it would have no effect on whether forwarding breaks.

   Thus, any claim that SPF "doesn't break forwarding" rests upon a
presumption that parties _other_than_ the parties described in this
draft will change their behavior. This is a dangerous assumption at
best; worse, it is an assumption never made explicit in the draft.

   IMHO, the recommendation that most domains use "... -all" is an
egregiously bad one, representing a fundamental misunderstanding of
the environment we must operate in. The thought that spf-discuss has
repeatedly endorsed it worries me...

John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>