On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 03:23:28PM -0400, Michael Hammer wrote:
|
| It would appear to me that the outcome you negotiated with MS is to
| place the onus on the publisher of the SPF1 record to work around the
| failures of SenderID/PRA implementation to DTRT.
OK, let's run a thought experiment so we can think this
through.
Suppose we renegotiate and the agreement is that MS PRA stuff
will not use v=spf1 records for PRA scope checking. MS will
tell people to publish spf2.0/pra, and the SPF community
will tell people to publish v=spf1.
In that case we must also provide document for SPF2.0/mfrom.
What will senders do?
Publish v=spf1 for backwards compatibility with SPF1 and Mail-from only or
spf2.0/pra,mfrom,submit for supporting new software or only spf2.0/mfrom
only. It will all be up to publisher to decide.
I'm personally against spf2.0 scoping approach all together and think we
should build scoping based on v=spf1 and introduce scope with modifier
but require that those publishing record for PRA actually add it and show
what they meant.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net