In <200505250925(_dot_)01446(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
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.
Ok, would this be clearer to you?
If domain owners choose to publish SPF records, it is RECOMMENDED
that they end in "-all", or redirect to other records that do, so
that a definitive determination of authorization can be made.
Or, would you then say that "domain owners can't end in -all"?
*sigh*.
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.
The spf-classsic I-D has yet to pass the IESG, but it is only two
votes away with only one "discuss" remaining. That discussion point
has been resolve in the latest revision.
-wayne