On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Scott Kitterman wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of
Julian Mehnle
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 9:45 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] RE: Sender ID in the news
I thought one of the main points of RFC 2822 checking was to avoid the
forwarding problems of RFC 2821 checking. If you do both, you might get
the worst of both worlds.
And now that v=SPF1 records designed for 2821 checking are going to be
repurposed for 2822 checking, it's pretty much unavoidable that you will get
the best of both worlds.
You'll also get the "worst" of both worlds. But that I mean people will
not only see failures of Classic SPF (mail from identity checking) as
those associated with SPF v1 records but now they will see failures of
PRA/SenderID being associated with that as well. If there are serious
problems with SenderID it will cause negative view of SPF in general in
eyes of email administators and the world.
That is why I tried very hard to pursuide Meng (mostly privately) to
change it so that SenderID stands only for PRA checking and that SPF is
viewed as completely separate concept that is so happened to have good
dns syntax records that SenderID can also be based on. That way SPF is
still viewed as something separate and not just subpart of SenderID and
if SenderID fails, it is good for us. Unfortunetly in latest SenderID
draft it now mentions that SPF Classic mail from is one of the "parts"
of SenderID concept which is very bad idea and as far as I see it will
cause complete subfusion of SPF by SenderID in the eyes of the world.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net