In <A17F0852-1D9C-11D9-A608-000393A56BB6(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com> Mark Lentczner
<markl(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com> writes:
On Oct 13, 2004, at 7:37 PM, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
1) what exactly is everyone's objection to allowing v=spf1
records to be interpreted in PRA scope?
My objection to allowing v=spf1 records to be interpreted in PRA scope
is that such records weren't published about PRA. If you re-interpret
what people say, and then base reputation systems on such
re-interpretation, you reduce the strength of the original statements:
Some people will rightly claim that their reputation is not deserved,
as it is based on misinterpretation of what they published.
Huh...
I thought you had long been of the opinion that the SPFv1 records
could easily be used to cover all (useful) scopes and that was the
reason why you removed the scope= modifier last fall. From what I can
remember, up until IETF-60, you were publically arguing that in the
few cases were the 2821 and 2822 scopes didn't match, you could easily
and safely publish the union of both sets.
I thought this was one area where you, Meng and I all agreed.
Am I miss-remembering something?
-wayne