On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:52:46 -0800 "Murray S. Kucherawy"
<msk(_at_)sendmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
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?
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.
SPF support is explicitly included in the list of methods supported by
the draft. If other additional wording is needed to indicate that this
would replace the Received-SPF header in RFC4408, can someone propose
such? I'm not sure off the top of my head what language might be
appropriate.
The current wording is meant to acknowledge that Received-SPF exists,
but is not sufficiently universal for general use. Personally I think
that's sufficient. I don't think we need to officially deprecate it; as
Scott indicates, one could use either or both in an SPF implementation.
I'm stuck doing mail on my Treo today, so I have looked at the exact
wording, but your intent sounds right. As long as this is not meant to
replace what's in RFC 4408, I think no one from the SPF community would
object.
I've put adding this header on my TODO for one of my Postfix policy servers
so the end user (server admin) can decide.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html