On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Let me phrase it this way: the IESG should not sanction conflicting
experiments by publishing conflicting specifications,
I agree.
But I do not believe that SPF and Sender-ID conflict in any way
whatsoever and this was accepted by the WG right up to the point where
people started to complain about IPR licenses.
That's because they *weren't* in conflict.
I do not believe that one group should be able to block a proposal they
do not like by alleging a non-existent conflict.
But they are in conflict now. v=spf1 has always been for mfrom/helo.
That is why spf2.0 makes the scope explicit - so they can add pra and
future identities. The SID spec has been revised to treat
v=spf1 as equivalent to spf2.0/pra - instead of spf2.0/mfrom,helo
as originally specified by the WG.
The appeal just says this is a mistake, and it should go back to
spf2.0/mfrom,helo. This is just basic backward compatibility.
On another topic:
Is it reasonable for my SPF checker to go ahead and check for spf2.0 with an
mfrom scope? (Apart from the political aspect of appearing to support
Microsoft.) If mfrom is listed as a scope, is the record evaluated
the same as v=spf1?
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.