spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Draft IETF appeal

2005-08-22 17:44:08
Mark Shewmaker wrote:

I was under the impression that the spf2.0/mfrom and v=spf1
syntaxes weren't precisely compatible.  I don't remember the
details off the top of my head

A minor theoretical difference, spf2.0 kept the positional
modifiers, v=spf1 doesn't know this feature.  In practice
no spf2.0 positional modifier exists at the moment, so this
point is moot (it's on my wish list for v=spf1.1 ;-)

If it is true that the syntax is different, then Sender ID
implementations shouldn't read v=spf1 records at all.

There are no positional modifiers in v=spf1 policies, so if a
hypothetical spf2.0 implementation is determined to screw up
it needs something else, it could check PRA or Message-IDs ;-)

 [Julian's text about conflicting experiments]
Extremely well worded.

Full ACK.

1.  Should the patent issue be brought up at all?

No.  The IESG, Julian, and we are no lawyers,  TTBOMK all IPR
issues followed IETF rules.

 [limited reuse]
I just wanted to throw out the rough idea in time for it to
< be useful if it could at all help.)

Doesn't work, there are cases where you get an erroneous PASS
for PRA-on-spf1.  The only way is to copy a v=spf1 policy text
as is to spf2.0/pra explicitly by those who want to opt-in, or
something like op=pra.
                               Bye, Frank

<http://mid.gmane.org/42A64C5E(_dot_)5456(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>