On Aug 26, 2005, at 9:59 AM, wayne wrote:
In this case, the two experiments interpret the same codepoints
in the
DNS in subtly different ways.
A mail-sending domain indicates that it is participating by
publishing
certain DNS RR's.
Crucially, a mail-sending domain cannot opt in to the SPF experiment
without also opting in to the senderid experiment. This renders any
claimed results of either experiment suspect.
If this is the source of the conflict, then BOTH experiments should
not use the v=spf1 records.
-andy
The stated goal of draft-schlitt-spf-classic is to document SPF,
basically as it was before the IETF got involved. Yes, the IETF is
calling it an experiment, which I don't agree with. It is documenting
an existing, well established, protocol.
Are you saying that the IETF shouldn't publish an RFC that documents
SPF?
I stated that the SPF and Sender ID experiments should not use the
v=spf1 records to avoid conflict. I did not state that the IETF
should not publish an Experimental RFC about SPF.
But since you brought this up: if you (the author of the document) do
not consider this to be an experiment, then perhaps the IETF should
not publish SPF as an Experimental RFC.
-andy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf