On Sun, 9 Jan 2005, Julian Mehnle wrote:
I don't want a political statement just for the sake of it. What I want
is a statement saying that...
- using SPFv1 records for RFC 2822 identities isn't what they were/are
intended for, both on a conceptual level and on the level of the
millions of records already published,
- the SPF project is not willing to concede this repurposing to
Microsoft, i.e. the SPFv1 draft will not be adjusted to acknowledge
the need for extra v=spf2 records, and
- any complaints regarding the supposed brokenness that result from
misinterpretation of v=spf1 records should be directed at Microsoft,
i.e. SPF works correctly if used properly.
I would not bring up those particular facts. I would point out that:
- SPF and SenderID are different protocols that authenticate
completely different parts of an email (envelope vs. headers),
and should not be confused.
- A rejection by a SenderID implementation does NOT imply that
there is a problem with your SPF record. An acceptance
by SenderID does NOT imply that your SPF record is correct.
- If you need to ensure a Sender ID pass, you must publish a SenderID
record. See http://microsoft.com/...whatever
Although SenderID has a heuristic that tries to reuse
SPF records, that works for many simple domains, it is not
authoritative.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.