On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:37:15 -0400, Meng Weng Wong
<mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> wrote:
OK, let me try to get some clarification on this.
1) what exactly is everyone's objection to allowing v=spf1
records to be interpreted in PRA scope? Let's set aside
for now the issue of scope disambiguation whether using a
macro or a /scope tag, and assume that PRA record content
would be the same as for mailfrom record content.
I think making the assumption that the PRA record content and the
mailfrom record content are the same (in the context of v=spf1) is a
poor assumption. There is nothing that requires consistency between
the envelope (rfc2821) and the data (rfc2822). Until or unless that is
a requirement, any such assumption runs the risk of legitimate mail
being rejected because the (spf1) publishers intent (according to all
the versions so far) was only for rfc2821 checking. I would like to
say that what we have published for SPF1 will work (this covers quite
a few domains and a number of systems which generate the email) for
PRA but I wouldn't bet my life on it without checking first.
2) if MS changed the patent license to be compatible with
free software, would those objections go away?
With respect to spf1, no. See above.
3) would people rather see Microsoft promote an spf2.0/pra
syntax, while the opensource world promotes a v=spf1
syntax? Again, assume the contents of those records
would be the same; ignore scope disambiguation for now.
I would rather see pra as an allowable scope under spf2.0 with a
separate experimental draft put forward by Microsoft specifically for
pra checking implementation. spf2.0 might also allow other scopes as
well.
This sidesteps the issues of licensing, provides a neutral playing
field, allows people to choose which pieces they will (or will not
implement) and in addition enables everyone to move forward at their
own pace without the process breaking down as it did in the MARID
group.
I think that as long as the various scopes/checks can co-exist , that
is a reasonable solution. If Microsoft wants to plug PRA and the Open
Source folks want to do something different, then the marketplace will
decide. The whole point of MARID was to come up with something that
everyone would implement.....it was stillborn.
So without animosity, let's enable folks to get on with the things
they say they are chomping at the bits to do without foisting unwanted
pieces on anyone. We'll (my company) be publishing whatever it takes
to get the mail through. We are less concerned about inbound mail but
I recognize that this (the receiving MTA) is really where most of the
contentious issues are for implementation.
As usual, just my 2 cents.
Mike