spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: draft-newton-maawg-spf-considerations-00

2005-04-28 05:49:01

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, wayne wrote:

I disagree that draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt was the first specification
considered to contain the basis of SPF.  It is actually one of the
last.  Developement of SPF had been going on for about 9 months with
over a dozen different drafts before that particular one.

The first SPF draft to be considered useful for deployment was
draft-mengwong-spf.02.9.3.txt, released Dec 9, 2003.  Several
revisions, mostly editorial improvements were made between then and
Feb 11, 2004 when draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt was released.

It may be that the draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt version was the first to
be submitted to the IETF, but it was hardly the first to be the basis
of SPF.

On May 16, 2004 the draft-mengwong-spf-01.txt draft was release, which
I'm pretty sure was also submitted to the IETF.

Earlier [pre-]history of SPF in 2003 and several very early drafts can be found in my post at:
 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/12879

When I finally find time for it, I plan to write similar history for the 2nd year (and by that time probably for 3rd one). This is not to just keep
people aware of the protocol development history process as I also would
really like to try to collect list of most interesting ideas proposed at spf and people who have done it so that in the future proper attribution could be put if these ideas are ever used in drafts and other documents.

:    It should be noted that some proponents of SPF Classic (Section
:    2.1.2) do not consider Sender ID (Section 2.1.3) to be a legitimate
:    variant of SPF.  This may cause confusion when determining the
:    compliance of software.

If, by "some proponents", you mean "all but a few", then yeah.

To reduce the confusion caused by this, you should not call Sender ID
a variant of SPF.  You could say that Sender ID has origins in both
SPF and Microsoft's CallerID.

Since SPF Council made (going to?) press-release clearly stating that SPF is not part of SenderID, it would be appropriate for SPF Council to have made Andrew Newton aware of it by sending him a private copy and request that reference to whenever its official publish copy is at is to be included in future version of this draft document if it comes.

--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net