spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Moving Forward ...

2004-10-17 08:39:54
In <4171175E(_dot_)6080600(_at_)constantcontact(_dot_)com> Margaret Olson 
<molson(_at_)constantcontact(_dot_)com> writes:

[...]                                                   With all the
chaos and confusion now over what an SPF record (any version) really
defines I don't expect we'll see the kind of proactive publishing I
was worried about.

I am *very* concerned about this also.

When the SenderID draft was going through MARID, the semantics of the
SPFv1 records were changed.  Some of these incompatible changes were
due to MS demands, such as the removal of the %{h} macro variable.
Others appear to be due to using something other than the final SPF
draft (spf-draft-200406.txt) as a basis for Unified SPF.  Some are bug
fixes to the drafts that created new subtle bugs.

I can't speak for others, but I glossed over a lot of these
incompatible changes because we (the folks in the MARID WG) were
defining "SenderID", not "SPF".  SenderID, with the PRA, had so many
major problems that were never resolved that I never saw much reason
to waste the time to go over the drafts with a fine toothed comb.  It
would be like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.


While I can understand Mark's desire to use the better written
marid-protocol and marid-mailfrom drafts as a base, I can see no
reason to be so incompatible with spf-draft-200406.  It has been *the*
standard for SPF-classic for 5 months now.  SPF-classic should not be
a warmed over SenderID.



-wayne