spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: When did we lose control?

2004-10-21 08:36:40
In <4177C478(_dot_)6C19(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann 
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:

wayne wrote:

I've mentioned this RFC2317 several times

I've found only one article back in June with keyword = 2317
and author = your address in gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss:

Well, I found this public reference that I made to RFC2317, so that
totals three that I've made.  
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.devel/392

Unfortunately, one other references that I remember making was a
private email to Robert Fullerton.

Another reference made to slashes being valid in domain names is:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg02068.html

Beats me where this should be related to parsing a domain-spec
in SPF sender policies.

Because slashes are valid domain names and there is every reason to
believe that people may want to use invalid host names, but valid
domain names, in their SPF records.  I gave an example of such in:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.devel/386


That's clear in protocol-03 resp. draft-lentczner.  [...]

It doesn't allow a slash within the domain-spec foo.

Yes, that's what I said and what my ABNF change fixes.

                                                      If that
would be a problem Robert's idea %! could solve it.

I think you mean Roger Moser, but maybe not.

You're talking about the article with this piece of text:

| I will also listen to people who haven't actually done any
| SPF development, but don't expect as much weight to be given.

This is is a careful edit of what I said.


Consequently I did not comment your private text, and looked
only for problems in the actual SPF spec.

[large snip]
But as you said you don't want input from others who are not
currently implementing SPF, and I certainly comply.  Bye, Frank

That is not what I said.  I said, in full:

| I am very interested in any comments *ESPECIALLY* from actual SPF
| developers. In particular, I would really like to know which things
| in my "SPF" spec differ from the implementations you have created. I
| will also listen to people who haven't actually done any SPF
| development, but don't expect as much weight to be given.


Yes, I give greater weight to those that have real world experience
doing stuff.  I never said, as you claim, that I "don't want input
from others who are not currently implementing SPF".


-wayne