spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ptr specs

2004-09-15 22:03:17
Koen Martens wrote:

opens up the question: what draft specifies 'SPF-Classic',
http://spf.pobox.com/draft-ietf-marid-protocol-00.txt
or indeed
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-marid-protocol-02.txt

The real classic is (IMHO + IANAL ;-) draft-mengwong-spf-01.txt

protocol-00 was the 1st attempt to get a compatible syntax used
with PRA instead of "classic".  At this point it was already
clear that PRA isn't the same as "classic", but the authors
used the existing syntax with minor technical improvements.

protocol-02 again offered technical improvements (better ABNF
and examples), and it documented PRA != "classic" using a new
prefix spf2.0/pra.

If you ignore the PRA vs. "classic" issue it's still almost the
same syntax as in draft-mengwong-spf-01.txt, with technical
corrections and improvements.

Therefore it's possible to use this syntax for spf2.0/mailfrom,
and maybe MARID accepts spf2.0/mailfrom (obviously we'd need a
"mailfrom" document based on this syntax, like the existing PRA
document based on this syntax).

One issue currently discussed is the missing spf2.0/helo.  If
that's really almost the same as in draft-mengwong-spf-01.txt,
then the updated form of v=spf1 is spf2.0/mailfrom,helo

We'd need a separate "helo" document, or the "mailfrom" text
could cover both scopes.  There's a non-technical problem with
"helo", one of the MARID co-chairs wanted to discuss Sender-Id
(now spf2.0) before CSV.  But CSV and "helo" address partially
the same problem.

One possible solution could be to get spf2.0/mailfrom ready,
and discuss "helo" later together with CSV.  With this strategy
spf2.0/mailfrom is an almost proper subset of v=spf1.  But the
syntax of sender policies is always the same, plus / minus the
possible addition of a scope-macro as proposed by Meng.

The fourth relevant scope from my POV is Wayne's "from", it's
very different from PRA (=> no patent issue) and does something
with 2822 headers.  But so far nobody discussed it in MARID.

Please correct me if I got this wrong, I've no idea what MARID
did in its Jabber sessions (I've only read the very first log,
and the summaries published here resp. on the MARID ML).

                            Bye, Frank
-- 
<http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test>



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>