Well, I've made another attempt at submitting this SPF draft to the
IETF. It looks like my use of a "2" instead of a "0" may have caused
the delay. I've changed the name to draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00
anyway since the draft-schlitt-spf-XX drafts were really intended for
just libspf2, while these drafts are intended for the IETF.
The drafts are in a slightly different place now. See:
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.html
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.xml
A diff between this version and the previous version can be found at:
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/changes_from_draft-schlitt-spf-02.xml.diff.txt
With the last set of changes, the draft was pushed over 48 pages
again. 48 pages is way too long, RFC2822 is only 51 pages. I went
back and deleted a bunch of stuff and was able to get the draft back
down to 48 pages, but I'm going to start getting grumpy with people
who only suggest additions to the text instead of deleting. You think
there is something important that needs to be added? Well, be
prepared to show something else that is less important and should be
deleted.
I still haven't gone through and created a list of semantic changes
from spf-draft-200406. Sorry, I'll try and get to that soon.
The major differences between this schlitt-spf-02 spec and my last
published schlitt-spf-classic-00 spec are:
* Near the top of the draft, there was a claim that all references to
things like "return-path" and "reverse-path" instead of "MAIL FROM"
would only be used in conjunction with a normative reference. I've
updated the draft to make this actually so. ;-)
* As noted in other replies, editorial changes made by William,
Hector, Alex, etc. were applied. Check the diff for the exact
wording that I used.
* A wildcard example used names like "X.COM" instead of "X.COM.". (I
probably should change these to example.com, but...)
* A bunch of spelling errors were found by my spell checker, but I'm
sure a bazillion grammatical errors remain.
Hmmm... It seems like I've put a lot more work into this draft than
the above list shows, but I guess that was doing bunch of double
checking and research.
-wayne