In <20041014023715(_dot_)GP1135(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> Meng Weng
Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:
1) what exactly is everyone's objection to allowing v=spf1
records to be interpreted in PRA scope?
I think there is a certain danger for using the SPFv1 records for PRA
checkings since there certainly are cases where the set of IP
addresses used to send email with the 2821.MAILFROM identity is not the
same set of IP addresses as the 2822.From: identity.
From talking with both you (Meng) and MarkL, you two have convinced me
that:
1) The number of cases where these two sets are not identical is
small.
2) It is safe to publish the union of these two sets.
3) The domains which are sets are not equal will generally know this
and be very willing to fix their v=spf1 records.
However, it took more than a little work to convince me. It appears
that a very large number of people have not thought really really hard
about this and much prefer the obviously safer route of not using
v=spf1 records for anything other than the contexts use by
SPF-classic.
As a result, when the folks at IETF-60 decided that there must be new
records, I (and I thought MarkL), decided not to try and fight that
battle. I think it is a wise decision and you simply will not
convince enough people that it is save to use v=spf1 records for the
PRA.
2) if MS changed the patent license to be compatible with
free software, would those objections go away?
The patent license issue has a huge impact on my support of the PRA,
but it doesn't change my opinions about using v=spf1 records for the
PRA.
-wayne