In <42975ADB(_dot_)3A32(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
wayne wrote:
Should I add an IANA consideration blurb about registering
scopes/identities?
No. IIRC Julian said "spf 3" about %{x} (= Meng's %{s} in old
discussions). For v=spf1 better get rid of the scope stuff in
Received-SPF, it's science fiction and useless, HELO vs. mfrom
is obvious, the former has no @.
In the I-D, the HELO identity has an implicit "postmaster@" added to
it, and in practice, it is often explicitly added. I think explicitly
say what scope is useful.
Besides "mfrom" is an spf2.0 term, "scope" is an spf2.0 idea,
and a clumsy v=spf1 header field supporting "pra" is obscene^W
useless, the tested identity is visible.
"Scope" is the name of a modifier used in the SPF specs in the fall of
2003. It was resurected for MARID in a slightly different form.
I bet there are still some "v=spf1" records out there that have scope=
and default= modifiers in them.
-wayne