Mark Shewmaker wrote:
Current spf1 systems ignore each of the two second lines
Yes, "v=spf1 etc." is different from "v=spf1/foo,bar etc."
So where's the incompatibility with what my suggestion
recommends?
I don't see any incompatibility at the first glance. It's
very similar to "spf2.0/foo,bar etc.", you replaced the
"spf2.0" in this string by "v=spf1". But so far that's
only a minor cosmetical modification.
You talk about mfrom, helo, pra, and Wayne's text. But in
Wayne's text "helo" is again resp. still a part of v=spf1,
and no separate scope.
What's your idea for a separate "helo" scope, who wants it
for which purpose ? If nobody wants a separate "helo" at
the moment, you have essentially two scopes: 821 vs. PRA.
For two scopes your idea might be a bit too elaborated, it
starts to make much more sense with more scopes. But what
do you have in mind, Wayne's spf-from-hdr maybe ?
Without a clear idea why "we" should consider many scopes,
"we" won't get it right. Jim can certainly do without "us"
for his PRA stuff, and I doubt very much that changing the
"spf2.0/pra" syntax again is on his top 10 wish list.
Even if this would give him an artificial "MS does v=spf1"
argument (actually your v=spf1/ with slash is not v=spf1).
So why should he want it ? Why's that better than a new
v=spf1 option like op=pra ?
"You" (many authors here, including Wayne, excludig me)
said again and again that users do want 822 tests, and
their policies would be identical, and "anti-phishing" is
cool.
If that would be true, then many users would opt-in, and
add op=pra or similar solutions to their v=spf1 policies.
Bye, Frank