spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea

2004-06-08 15:28:59
At 01:15 AM 6/8/2004 -0400, you wrote:
From: Mark Shewmaker <mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com>
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:56:24 -0400

The PRA extraction algorithm is also defined in section 4 of:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-marid-core-00.txt

SUBMITTER is defined at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-marid-submitter-00.txt

-- 
Mark Shewmaker
mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com
******************** REPLY SEPARATER ********************
These 2 documents cleared up a lot of controversy for me. Unless I read
them wrongly, it doesn't say anything about having to use XML in DNS
records (which I am dead set against). What is does say is that each SPF
mechanism must be tag separated and some tag crap prepended and appended. I
fail to see the usefulness of all those tags, but since it is processed
locally, I do not see the harm either.

The SUBMITTER document was even more informative. It doesn't say you have
to process the RFC 2822 From: (I am dead set against processing anything
after DATA), although in early implementations you would probably have to
just to get the information at times.

As far as I can see, SPF can survive quite nicely as is.

J.A. Coutts