In <42978A19(_dot_)77C5(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
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.
I can't, but that is part of why I don't see the problem with adding
the scope= keyword to the Received-SPF header. All previous
Received-SPF header specs allowed for additional keyword-value pairs
to be added.
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.
The optional scope= information on the Received-SPF header does not
change the semantics of SPFv1.
"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.
I disagree about the rough consensus and I do not see how adding
information to the Recevied-SPF header restricts future solutions to
the overall problems with scope definitions.
-wayne