-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dick St.Peters wrote:
Julian Mehnle writes:
As my appeal[1] pointed out, at the time draft-lyon-senderid-core-00
was submitted for experimental status, there was no "running code"
that actually interpreted "v=spf1" as "spf2.0/mfrom,pra".
Perhaps you shouldn't have said that. Sendmail's sid-milter has used
v=spf1 records for PRA checks since its initial release in August
2004. I don't know the date for draft-lyon-senderid-core-00, but I
believe it was well after August.
draft-lyon-senderid-core-00 was submitted in October 2004. However, I
again quote from my appeal[1]:
| So when Mark Lentczner changed[2] the version identifier to "spf2.0" in
| draft-ietf-marid-protocol-01 in the aftermath[3,4] of IETF-60, there was
| clearly a consensus to avoid the use of "v=spf1" records for checking of
| PRA or other unexpected identities.
So if in August 2004 the Sendmail people chose to make sid-milter use
"v=spf1" records, they clearly did it against IETF consensus. I don't
think this practice should be sanctioned ex post despite them having
ignored that consensus.
References:
1. http://www.xyzzy.claranet.de/home/test/senderid-appeal.htm
2. http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03282.html
3. http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03164.html
4. http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03081.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDmaFBwL7PKlBZWjsRAh3CAJ45xjeJVpa83TE5cXwEaevCPBgbLACgn+If
PfEMgfRvhPQVTqyb+/eZ9tc=
=MaiF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com