On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:14:49 -0800 "Murray S. Kucherawy"
<msk(_at_)sendmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
SM wrote:
If this memo replaces the Received-SPF header, then it changes the
requirements on an existing protocol.
SPF is an experimental protocol. Thus, I'm not sure this is a big
deal. Anyone else want to weigh in?
Yes. SPF is an ongoing open source project with ongoing development.
There are multiple implementations that support the current Received-SPF
header field. I'm personally a maintainer on two applications and one
library that would be impacted.
Experimental or not, it is a deployed protocol and Received-SPF is part of
it.
It would be sensible, I think for now, to define SPF support here as an
optional addition or adjunct to the protocol defined in RFC 4408. Once a
multi-method standardized header field exists (as defined here), it's use
could be part of the transition from experimental to something else.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html