Regarding Wayne's comments
(http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200411/0188.html)
Where they touch on language that I suggested, I am in complete
agreement. Wayne has improved on what I wrote.
In particular
I wrote this paragraph( with colons). Waynes suggestion comes after.
: When SenderID was under consideration by the MARID task group, there
: was never any acceptance of the idea that SenderID would reuse v=spf1
: records. Microsoft, appeared to agree that SenderID would require its
: own records. Since the time MARID failed to advance the SenderID
: proposal to the IETF for further consideration, Microsoft has proposed
: this reuse of v=spf1 records on their own.
I suggest deleting this paragraph. There *was* wide acceptance of
reusing v=spf1 records in the MARID group, but new records were
mandated at IETF-60. While I think the IETF will probably again
mandate new records, I think that is much more of an IETF position
than an SPF community position.
Wayne knows the history of MARID discussions better than I. I expect he
is right and I got it wrong. Perhaps a paragraph like the following
would be a useful replacement.
Many domains will not experience problems from the use of their spfv1
records by SenderID. Those that do, or suspect they will, need to
publish spfv2.0/pra records as indicated by Microsoft.
Mark Holm