-----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 Frank
Ellermann
Sent: donderdag 7 april 2005 7:18
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] Re: IESG evaluation of SPF
Maybe some more questions help. There must be a reason why the
RfC-editor wants to introduce this dangerous change in the SPF
draft. Please try to get in contact with him (as SPF Council).
Actually it's no "him", you know what I mean.
I cannot look into their (his) head, of course. I could imagine they are
not too eager to adopt something which is too "niche" like; and that
they'd like to keep their options open (like a good politician), so that
they feel they will have endorsed something which is multi-purposed, and
may perhaps eventually be combined with something MS proposes (not that I
think this, but I can imagine this rationale being in the back of their
heads).
"MUST NOT", of course, is much more forbidding, RFC-wise
Yes, that's the idea. "We" created this mess (Meng, MARID, MS,
this list, Mark L, Wayne, you, and me), so now let's at least
be clear.
I think we are far more in agreement than it may seem; we both (all) want
a statement which says at least NOT RECOMMENDED (or words to that effect).
You just want the statement to be even stronger.
The IETF even tries to tone down our "NOT RECOMMENDED"
Not "the IETF", they have no idea what this problem is about.
Yes, editorial note. I shall make a note, for future reference, not
to answer email at 5 AM. :)
Therefore the PRA algorithm MUST NOT be applied on a sender
policy designed for v=spf1. And vice versa. It's a fatal
error to try this. And that it _apparently_ works in many
cases only makes it much worse.
But the procedure is really "NOT RECOMMENDED"
It's not only NOT RECOMMENDED, it's definitely wrong. Like a
procedure claiming that all odd numbers are primes. It works
for 3, 5, 7 and infinitely many other primes, but it does not
work for 1, 9, 15, 21, and infinitely many other odd numbers.
Personally, I am not jumping to "go renegade" over the wording of this
paragraph. If we can get this thing passed with wording that says: "NOT
RECOMMENDED", then that, to me, will suffice for now. The point Julian
made, and to which I concur, is that we should definitely not go for
anything less stern.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx