-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Wayne Schlitt wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Wayne, is it ok to patch -01pre5 like this?
Checking other identities against
- SPF records is NOT RECOMMENDED because there are cases
+ v=spf1 records is NOT RECOMMENDED because there are cases
(e.g. <xref target="forwarding"/>) that are known to give
incorrect results.
Ok, this sentence now reads as:
Checking other identities against
the SPF version 1 records is NOT RECOMMENDED
because there are cases (e.g. <xref target="forwarding"/>.1.2)
that are known to give incorrect results.
So far, so good. As a minor nit, I'd s/the SPF/SPF/.
One other thing in this paragraph occurred to me: Section 9.3.1.2,
localpart cryptographic signature schemes (SRS/SES), isn't exactly a
_typical_ example for when checking "other identities" is bound to fail.
May I suggest the following amendment, based on pristine -01pre5:
- --- draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5.xml
+++ draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5+mehnle_other_idents.xml
@@ -256,8 +256,13 @@
At least the "MAIL FROM" identity MUST be checked, but it
is RECOMMENDED that the "HELO" identity also be checked
beforehand.
- - Checking other identities against
- - SPF records is NOT RECOMMENDED because there are cases
- - (e.g. <xref target="forwarding"/>) that are known to give
- - incorrect results.
+ </t>
+ <t>
+ Checking other identities against SPF version 1 records is
+ NOT RECOMMENDED because there are cases that are known to
+ give incorrect results.
+ For example, most mailing lists rewrite the "MAIL FROM" identity
+ (see <xref target="mailing-lists"/>), but some do not change any
+ other identities in the message. The scenario described in
+ <xref target="forwarding"/>.1.2 is another example.
</t>
<t>
(Attention, patch won't apply automatically due to some prettyfied line
breaks.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCfO8ywL7PKlBZWjsRAiqCAKD5YSVBna/roRRPszpxx8xAuCui4gCfW3O2
jK/fKoG6eAIUs7zqD/ITo2c=
=MFSf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----