Mark,
First, thank you for an outstanding effort in pushing SPF forward. Please
accept the very minor comments I offer below on some issues that I spotted
during my quick review.
Draft comments
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/spf/draft-lentczner-spf-00pre1.txt
Minor nitpick: Conformance Issue.
The term "e-mail" is generally used most frequently throughout the body of
the document, however "email" is also used once in the draft body in the
last paragraph of page 29. Adjusting that instance to "e-mail" might be
appropriate for conformities sake.
Syntax conformity issue on page 31, the expansion example:
%{l} strong-bad
%{l-} strong.bad
%{lr} strong-bad
%{lr-} bad.strong
I am guessing that
%{lr} strong-bad
should actually be
%{lr} bad-strong
Contributors and Acknowledgements on Page 38:
While I don't know the genesis of [DMP], I believe the progenitor of [RMX]
is Hadmut Danisch. Perhaps it is appropriate to offer an attribution to
Mr. Danisch for [RMX] and to the creator(s) of [DMP] should they be
identifiable.
Best,
Alan Maitland
The Commerce Company - Making Commerce Simple(sm)
http://WWW.Commerco.Com/
At 12:14 AM 10/6/2004, you wrote:
Friends -
I have completed a draft that describes SPF v1 for submission as an
experimental RFC. I will do so one week from today. Please review it and
let me know any errors in it.
Let me remind you that the intention of this draft is to codify the common
understanding, implementation and deployment of SPF v1 (or "SPF
Classic"). It is understood that it doesn't capture changes contemplated,
implemented by some, or even already agreed upon for a future
version. Its main purpose is to have a published point of departure for
experimental deployment and future development.
With regard to my prior posts, I have answered my questions thus:
1) HELO domain checking has not been included. While it may make logical
sense, I read the postings as clearly indicating that its semantics,
implementation, and even its existence hardly constitutes a common
understanding. Note that the null reverse path rule, which uses the HELO
domain, is still included.
2) The Received-SPF header has not been included. Replies to my question
indicated general acceptance that this was part of SPF v1.
However, upon review of the available language, I have found that the
header is poorly specified: The grammar was incomplete and ambiguous, and
the operational aspects of it left some large open questions.
Hence, rather than design-on-the-fly, I left it out.
3) The new RR type language has been kept. Almost all replies were in
favor of keeping it and it seems clear that everyone understands what its
purpose and intent are, even if it is not implemented anywhere (since,
after all, we don't have a IANA assigned number for it yet!)
Therefore, without further delay, here are URLs to the drafts:
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/spf/draft-lentczner-spf-00pre1.html
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/spf/draft-lentczner-spf-00pre1.txt
- Mark
Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
markl(_at_)glyphic(_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