In <b6f32752050827015912854810(_at_)mail(_dot_)gmail(_dot_)com> Peter Karsai
<peter(_dot_)karsai(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> writes:
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02
Thanks for the info.
We will upgrade our library only when it goes RFC I think. Originally,
we developed the library to be compatible with the original draft and
a MARID intermediate draft, then when it turned to be a bad idea, we
had to rewrite the library to the original draft. I hope that the
final RFC will be more compatible with the original draft than the
intermediate MARID draft was, but we do not want to make the same
mistake again.
Peter:
I *completely* understand the pain of trying to track the MARID
changes and also be compatible with the earlier SPF drafts.
That said, I really think you should consider updating to the latest
spec for a number of reasons:
1) spf-draft-200405 was replaced less than a week later by
spf-draft-200406 (aka draft-mengwong-spf-01). I can't see any real
reason to consider 200405 to be a good reference.
2) A huge amount of work was put into draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02 to
make it as compatible as practical with these earlier SPF drafts.
This is in sharp contrast to the MARID documents, which tried to
develop a new protocol based on both SPF and CallerID.
There have been some changes, in part because the previous SPF
drafts were not always consistent on various points and also various
SPF implementations were not consistent. Finally, there are a few
changes that have been made in order to get the draft through the
IETF.
The spf-classic-02 draft underwent extensive reviews here and I
think it is in *FAR* better shape than the earlier drafts.
Ok, now here is the most important one:
3) The spf-classic-02 draft is "soon" (e.g. whenever the RFC-editor
gets to it) be locked down so that we can't change it ever again.
We would have to develop a new I-D and run it through the IETF
process again to make any changes.
So, it is critically important that we know of, and approve of, all
differences between the spf-classic-02 draft and the earlier SPF
drafts. By updating your software to match the latest spec, you
would also be checking to make sure that the latest spec isn't
broken in some serious way.
So, mostly for the last reason, I urge you to update your software to
the latest spec. I think it would be very good for everyone if you
did.
-wayne
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com