william(at)elan.net wrote:
[skipping stuff where I mostly agree]
"equivalence" (excl. you, me, and IIRC Stuart)
Seth Goodman liked it too
Yes, sorry, it was Seth.
usefull for number of end-sites that have strong policies
about how email is composed (like banks)
Yes, let's discuss it again when the core SPF classic made it,
or when we decided what to do if it doesn't. Highly political
stuff, I'd prefer to harden MAIL FROM instead of Sender. The
"bounces-to" fraction (CLEAR) prefers HELO (and maybe Sender).
And the Sender-ID folks don't know WTF the problem is... <eg>
recognizable to existing spf1 clients (extension rather then
new version).
That's clear, I didn't get the why. Maybe it's for users who
can define at most one TXT RR per domain.
I never liked spf2.0 proposed syntax for scoping
It certainly offers sp2.0/mfrom,pra for those who really want
it. It was a MARID compromise, and while Wayne claims that
MarkL invented it I still think that Wayne proposed it... ;-)
SPF2.0 is no longer going forward as defined protocol
specification
TBD. It's not alone "our" spec., it's an incomplete result of
MARID. In theory a new protocol-core could adopt the critical
ideas from classic (error handling and processing limits), and
on that rock-solid base it could live, keeping its "positional
modifiers" (now that was definitely a clever idea of MarkL ;-)
"continued talking about scopes" is not exactly my POV :->
In that case this will also be my last post on this subject
right now and we can pick it up later after new draft is
published.
Strong ACK, when v=spf1 made it to the RfC in-queue, bye, Frank