Mark,
"> Given this response, I must ask what the heck is going
on?
What is with you folks? Geez, I'm just a guy who's been
doing a bunch of heavy lifting as best I can. Don't get all
wonky with me!"
I understand, however as you must appreciate this whole PRA
issue is troubling and in fairness the stance taken left me
a bit cold.
Okay, as suggested I sat down and read through the jabber
session:
http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-logs/marid(_at_)ietf(_dot_)xmpp(_dot_)org/2004-08-04.html
Here is what I gleaned:
On submitter, there were issues concerning implementation
and effectiveness.
With the protocol there were two big issues:
* Moving from txt to RR for writing policy records; and
* Coping with the change of version string.
There were also some minor issues concerning the actual
protocol.
On the IPR and license, the question was what is MS claiming
the IPR on? Unclear, but seems on PRA. As to the license
terms this was a big issue for lots of folks. (For example,
Sendmail unable to do any testing.) MS was given until Aug
23 to make full disclosure on IPR and license. This is a
drop dead date.
(It was acknowledged there is a firm in UK making a claim to
Sender-ID by way of trade mark.)
Reason, do engineering first, finish this and then make
disclosure. MS understands this will be an issue and dealt
with during last call.
On the PRA, Jim Lyons made a presentation. Questions were
raised about the effectiveness of the PRA. Decided to split
the PRA from the core. At the same time an alternative draft
to be worked on for PRA if MS insists on IPR and license.
Douglas Otis to do this draft.
Acknowledged no testing done on PRA. Sendmail unable to do
any testing until license issue resolved.
Then discussion moved on to CSV.
Now, I appreciate you were present, but my sense was it
would be appropriate to leave in MAIL FROM testing in either
the protocol or core.
Why? The view was that it may take a while to implement
submitter and therefore in the absence of Sender from checks
we would be doing MAIL From checks anyway.
My suggestion would be to go over the notes and make sure
Mail from checks has to come out of the draft. Besides, if
one does a mail from check and there is a failure, why waste
time on all of the rest.
If there is a pass, you can still leave in the requirement
for a PRA check.
Taking this approach would serve two purposes.
It would enhance the final drafts and also overcome the
concerns raised about ongoing application of IPR and the
license, allowing people to continue to work on
development surrounding submitter, protocol and core and
leave PRA aside until the IPR and license issue was settled.
My proposal? Leave in a MAIL FROM check requirement in
either Protocol or Core as a suggested pre-cursor to doing
PRA and then if others want it out, let them ask and we can
respond on the issue over at Marid.
Trusting this helps to resolve the issue.
John
P.S. I am not going to raise this over at MARID as I view
this as an internal SPF issue. Others are of course free to
do so. Cheers, John
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
The FTC Calls For Sender Authentication
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/dne.html
It would also be helpful to get answers on the following
questions, although they may be outside of your purview:
Please. If you want to know what the MARID working group thinks
or
what it decided to do, just go and read the mailing list and the
transcripts. (The jabber session from yesterday includes notes
from the
scribes and others.) I'm going to give up trying to relay that
info,
'cause it is late and I don't appreciate being beaten up for it.
I suggest guidance is required for all those involved with
ongoing development.
Well, between your message and Wayne's, that's a funny way to ask
for
it!
I'm going to bed -- maybe I'll be in a better mood tomorrow. Or
perhaps after I do the hours and hours of draft editing I agreed
to do
before next Friday.
- Mark
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in
Atlanta features SPF and Sender ID.
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
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.734 / Virus Database: 488 - Release Date: 04/08/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.734 / Virus Database: 488 - Release Date: 04/08/2004