Is this perhaps the first example of Microsoft's "embrace and extend"?, as I
have warned:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg04536.html
As I have written twice already today (those 2 posts did not go out to list for
some reason), IMHO we need structural validation feedback written into the spec
to prevent other de facto standards from monopolies:
AccuSpam wrote:
Again I want to re-iterate my opinion that there needs to be some structural
enforcement/incentive for validation in the spec, else spf syntax errors
have no incentive to be fixed. If the e-mail still gets through, and since
we know that most senders are not currently experiencing problems from
forgery, and since recipients have no incentive to notify the sender of
error, I see structural incentive is currently to encourage proliferation of
errors.
For example, possibly the spec could ask errors to be reported to
"postmaster(_at_)domain".
At 06:43 PM 9/8/2004 -0400, you wrote:
An A record assigns an IP address to a domain name. I believe the erroneous
"a:1.2.3.4" representation happens because people mentally interpret the RHS
of what comes after the ":" as that which is assigned to the A record: an IP
address.
The wizard that Microsoft sponsors:
http://www.anti-spamtools.org/SenderIDEmailPolicyTool/Default.aspx
asks the user to do exactly what you say is incorrect.
<Direct quote from the page>
Enter any additional IP addresses (or ranges of addresses) you wish to add to
your SPF Record (one address or address range per line).
Examples:
1.2.3.4
1.2.3.4/24
<End quote>
Furthermore, the correct way of using a, all by itself, doesn't work in this
wizard, even though a check box to designate it is present. The incorrect way
is cheerfully passed through to the end result, e.g. a:123.123.123.123
The wizard at http://spftools.net/create.php says:
<Direct quote from the page>
If there is another named host or subnet that can send mail from this domain,
enter it here, with the CIDR block size if appropriate:
(If you need to specify a host/subnet by IP address, please use an IP4 record)
<End quote>
Now, if you know the meaning, this may seem clear, but when I read it the first
time, not really understanding, I read it as an invitation to do exactly what
you are complaining about.
To be fair, this wizard did spit out an error after I entered an ipv4
address in
the box. The error message wasn't as clear as it could be, and showed up in an
odd spot.
Writing what you mean, in an understandable fashion, rather than what you think
you mean, is not an easy task. Before you complain that your users are dumb
clucks, take your words out into the cold light of morning and read them hard,
without your preconceptions turned on, to see if you really wrote what you
meant. Better, give your text to someone unaquainted with your meaning and
have
them tell you what they read in it, Don't think they are dumb clucks if they
don't get it right. If several of your users can't, when they honestly try,
follow your directions to a working result, then you are the dumb cluck, not
them.
Mark Holm
mdholm(_at_)telerama(_dot_)com
-------
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