wayne wrote:
I think explicitly say what scope is useful.
Then you'll please be so kind to reproduce a real mail header
where a scope= is used in an Received-SPF header field created
by an existing v=spf1 implementation.
Otherwise it's spf2.0 territory and off limits for v=spf1. You
made clear statements what the v=spf1 spec. is supposed to be,
among others you discussed this with Ted.
I've informed another IESG member (Cc: Ted) about this plan.
William informed the IESG. This is NOT the time to add MARID
terms like "scope" or "mfrom" to the v=spf1 spec. when nobody
has implemented this scope=mfrom parameter for Received-SPF.
"Scope" is the name of a modifier used in the SPF specs in
the fall of 2003.
It was not a part of the wannabe "frozen" spec.s There was no
"rough consensus" to add it since I read this list. There are
serious disagreements and multiple competing ideas how to add
something like scopes to a hypothetical spf3.
It was resurected for MARID in a slightly different form.
You told the IESG that v=spf1 does NOT belong to MARID. The
SPF Council decided unanimously to go for a proposed standard
of its own. Ths s/experimental/standard/ in the 3864 Status:
was no "accident", whatever Bruce or Ted might think about it.
I bet there are still some "v=spf1" records out there that
have scope= and default= modifiers in them.
Maybe also include_subdomains=yes. Nevertheless the "zone cut"
was killed for a reason.
Bye, Frank