-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of David
MacQuigg
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:43 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Standard Authentication Query
At 12:12 PM 3/29/2005 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of
David MacQuigg
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:00 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] Standard Authentication Query
I'm, by and large, with Frank. We need to get the existing v=SPF1
documented in an experimental RFC and then move on to whatever comes next.
I do think that some added cautions wrt DNS loading and security risks may
be in order. I'm thinking that one over.
I wouldn't slow down the progress on the SPF standard, but be prepared to
make some changes to the parts relating to inter-operability.
But the current RFC effort is meant to describe the CURRENT practice. I
really think that for v=SPF1 we need to limit ourselves to codifying what's
in place. I wouldn't propose any changes to the current spec that directly
affect processing or creation of records.
Scott Kitterman