On Wed May 25 2005 08:39, wayne wrote:
In <200505250708(_dot_)40894(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
On Wed May 25 2005 01:21, wayne wrote:
In <200505221721(_dot_)29489(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce
Lilly <blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
undermined by language such as "It is RECOMMENDED that domains publish
SPF records".
No where in the I-D does it say that "It is RECOMMENDED that domains
publish
SPF records".
That text in fact appears at the start of the second paragraph of draft
section 2.3.
You left off the rest of the sentence, and therefore change its mean.
The complete sentence is:
It is RECOMMENDED that domains publish SPF records that end in
"-all", or redirect to other records that do, so that a definitive
determination of authorization can be made.
Please explain how one can "publish SPF records that end in '-all'" without
in fact publishing an SPF record. And/or explain how redirection to other
(SPF) records can happen without an SPF record being published.
The simple fact of the matter is that the draft does not adequately address
the failings of the scheme proposed, and it simply won't pass Last Call or
IESG reviews without forthrightly acknowledging those failings. Moreover,
with those failings, acknowledged or not, the scheme is unlikely to be
seriously considered for the Standards Track. If you really want a Standards
Track proposal, you'll need to address the issues -- most likely a *workable*
scheme would bear little resemblance to SPF or any of the currently proposed
schemes (I have separately outlined what I believe to be the minimum
characteristics needed to provide meaningful authorization for a MAIL FROM
reverse path; and I suspect that involves a chicken-and-egg problem).