----- Original Message -----
From: "Seth Goodman" <sethg(_at_)GoodmanAssociates(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 2:32 PM
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Scope macro, alternative syntaxes, and use cases
As far as implementations that are out there, every single one of them is
an
early adopter so a few changes should not be out of the question. I think
getting SPF adopted would be well served by supporting Unified SPF in a
single TXT record. Since unknown modifiers are ignored by existing
implementations, it wouldn't break existing implementations, it would just
require them to be upgraded to take full advantage of the scope modifier.
If we do implement the Unified SPF, it seems a poor choice to make all of
the as-yet-unpublished domains suffer in order to save a little bit of
effort for the early adopters, who could easily deal with the changes.
This is my personal view on all this. Again, it is my opinion only.
Meng et all, have done a wonderful job with SPF1 "classic". In my view, the
most important item it must address before anything else is added is the
"mail forwarding problem." From my understanding, MARID is trying to serve
this purpose by augmenting SPF1 with additional proposals, especially,
SUBMITTER and/or SENDERID.
I believe SPF is jeopardizing any further consideration if this ever growing
complexity of the specifications. People are not just going to "change" or
"upgrade" every time there is a new feature or specification. While many
systems or operators might depend on Meng providing a SPF tool for 3rd party
usage, not everyone will depend on this or use it. There will many, as it
is already happening, many implementations.
My main point is basically once a level of satisfaction is reached - that's
it!! No Mas! SPF will not cover all issues. Implementators are going to
do what it takes, which includes augment SPF whether its MARID variety or
not with other technologies as well that currently exist or in place.
My recommendation is:
Slow down, stabilize it, stop "scaring people" and work out the key issues
which is basically two as I see it:
- Mail forwarding
- HELO validation using a persistent domain concept.
In my view, the last item will remove CSV from consideration in my book.
I am not suggesting that progress should stop. But if you are going to
continue with new complex logics, please use a "v=SPF2" record so that they
is no ambiguity. V=SPF2 implementators will make sure it is backward
compatible, but without a doubt, it should be a requirement by trying to
force it into SPF1.
Thanks
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com