On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 02:19:52PM +0200, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
Part of the problem: The RFC editor seems to think SPF2.0 is
a successor to SPFv1.
Where do you gather that from? Has he said something to that effect?
Maybe I interpret it wrong.
<http://tinyurl.com/4z5qq>
" It would be nice if a lessons learned document was to come along. What
was wrong with SPF version 1 that lead to the creation of SPF version 2?
"
Or this:
| Russ Housley:
|
| Discuss [2005-02-03]:
|
| This is SPF version 1. The title should reflect this fact.
| (SPF version 2 is documented in draft-lyon-senderid-core-00.)
Perhaps somebody should dispell their (those at IESG who don't know) myths
and explain that at the moment there is no agreed-upon SPF version 2 and
so-called Sender ID is creation of Microsoft not supported by SPF
community and which draft in fact violates actual SPF draft.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net