In <4173190D(_dot_)75AE(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
wayne wrote:
It's also my opinion. Mark proposed good protocol-0x drafts in
MARID, and the last drafts were IMHO very near to a consensus
(protocol-03 + mailfrom-00).
I've re-inserted this text that Frank snipped.
The mailfrom proposal *never* had any serious technical
review.
What do you expect in less than one week from its publication
to the sudden death of MARID ?
Well, I expect that if you claim that there was near consensus on
protocol-03 and mailfrom-00, that you wouldn't turn around and in your
next message claim that it it is ok to not have any serious technical
review. Maybe you think that there can be consensus without it, but I
don't.
And it reflected the scope idea. That was your proposal, in a
desperate attempt to get those [censored] in MARID to see the
light after wasting months with crap like XML-over-DNS, PRA,
SenderID, and IPR.
The scope idea was not mine. Meng added it about a year ago. Mark
argued with Meng that it should be removed because it wasn't needed.
I argued with Meng that it should be removed because we didn't know
how to do good 2822.From: checking. Meng removed it last Nov? Dec?.
Slipping in the scope stuff as part of the SPFv2 record definition was
Mark's idea, and a darn good one too.
there were too many well know major problems with them that
made them unacceptable.
For mailfrom there weren't so many major problems. Your stuff
about the "validating evaluation" is nice but not absolutely
essential: Even without it it was clear that new mechanisms
won't work without a new version tag.
Agreed, unknown mechanisms have always been a bogus idea. That is why
they can be safely removed.
The FAIL stuff is just a bug, but no "major problem", it can be
fixed. Dito the macro-with-sp. The DDoS scenario is critical,
but obviously it's also possible to fix it in several ways.
Uh, I disagree. When you change the fundemental meaning of "fail" and
change the circumstances inwhich it is created, you have a major
change. Maybe not a major problem for everyone, but it certainly is
for many.
For HELO there were many opinions (incl. some Nays), but minus
%{h} this is exactly one sentence in your text. Mark asked
several times what "we" want to do about this _option_ (that's
certainly not a "major problem")
When trying to update a standard, the onus is on why something should
change. While not everyone saw the point of the HELO checking and
such, there never was a strong reason given for it to be removed.
Hence, it should still be there.
the spf.pobox.com website says that the SPF-classic spec is
spf-draft-200406.
Fine, my pages use draft-mengwong-spf-00, and that's the same
in paginated RfC format with only one really minor difference.
Oh good. So we both agree on the last spec for SPF-classic?
MarkL asked what direction we should go, I said "go left"
and MarkL said "Ok, we're going right!".
He got more than your answer. The important thing from my POV
was to keep the improved syntax of protocol-03, and of course
the SPF RR for various reasons.
Yeah, I think that's pretty much what William and I said.
But Mark got more answers than just two, and many asked for
"whatever you do, do it fast before [...]".
"wrong answers fast!!!!"
-wayne