In
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)62(_dot_)0505100534380(_dot_)11836(_at_)sokol(_dot_)elan(_dot_)net>
"william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net> writes:
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Oops, is that stuff about spf2.0 ? Then I won't discuss it at
the moment, I'm preparing for a war aka "last call schlitt".
[snip]
Shorter and all in one record. Note spf3.0, stuff like "only="
can't be added to spf2.0, same problem as stated in the "op="
memo. Of course spf3.0 can do whatever it wishes, e.g. use
your syntax. But this is not the time to discuss spf3.0 or
scopes or fantasy identities like submit or weird "op=" stuff
for the 1000 and first time. It's the time to get an RfC for
v=spf1 as is. More precisely it's one year after this time.
It so happens, I agree. I was actually hoping to bring this up after
new spf draft has been published by Wayne and we would have some pause
to discuss other things. But you and Julian continued talking about
scopes, so I thought I might as well say something about what I had.
P.S. My apologies to Wayne - I told him I'd not bring up anything new
until spf-classic-01 draft is published.
Ok, I see that both of you agree that scopes are probably best left to
be discussed later, and I agree with both of you.
I do think that scoping can be done *MUCH* better with a new syntax
and, obviously, an new version of SPF. The scoping in spf2.0 was
"accidently" slipped in by MarkL via some vague ABNF when the MARID
group was officially only doing the PRA scope. At the last minute,
this "accident" was used to give support to the mfrom scope at the
last minute. It is little wonder that the scoping in spf2.0 was
limited to the point of being almost useless.
But, as Frank says above, I'm going to save my energy for the last
call for the spf-classic I-D.
-wayne