On Sunday, July 20, 2014 14:43:40 John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, 20 July, 2014 13:12 -0400 Scott Kitterman
I think your characterization of SPF is almost correct. It
generally concerns itself with only the domain part of the
message, but it can be used to check authorization of the
local part as well (via macros). If you add a caveat before
validate in "does not validate the entire address" such as
(perhaps) typically or usually, then I think it would be
Speaking as editor of the hypothetical/ promised 5321bis, I
appreciate Dave's bringing the issue here, at least separating
it from what is or is not a valid erratum.
FWIW, my editing notes on the pre-5321 I-Ds indicate that the
current text was not of my invention. I think we should
concentrate on the substantive issue rather than casting blame,
so the person who offered the text on which people agreed
(perhaps by not paying enough attention), will, at least insofar
as it is within my power, remain anonymous for this discussion.
However, I note that Dave suggested that people send text. I
want to reinforce that. I was convinced, and remain convinced
that the spec if better with pointers to DKIM and/or SPF (and,
when it is updated, to anything else that may be relevant). I
believe the consensus when 5321 was being developed was
consistent with that conviction. So, while I will obvious do
whatever the group agrees on, my preference is to replace the
bad sentence(s) with correct ones rather than dropping them.
Especially if we have gotten this wrong once, I would really
appreciate very specific text and discussion of that text.
Statements like the above are, IMO, useful in clarifying the
issues but not really actionable where the text is concerned --
I don't want to guess, either about what text should be written
or about whether people have or have not agreed text as well as
ideas. So, please, send text that others can comment on and
that I can eventually just past into the draft.
I think any reference to DKIM better belongs to a hypothetical 5322bis.
Whatever it does, it's not related to the envelope.
I'd be glad to help with this aspect of 5321bis where I agree some reference
to SPF would make sense (for the purposes of Dave's erratum though I think
removing the sentence in question is the best solution).
ietf-smtp mailing list