-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Mehnle [mailto:julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net]
Sent: donderdag 8 december 2005 12:06
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] Fwd: Re: Appeal: Publication of
draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced
draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02
"Note that the Sender ID experiment may use DNS records which may have
been created for the current SPF experiment or earlier versions in
this set of experiments. Depending on the content of the record, this
may mean that Sender-ID heuristics would be applied incorrectly to a
message. Depending on the actions associated by the recipient with
those heuristics, the message may not be delivered or may be discarded
on receipt.
Participants relying on Sender ID experiment DNS records are warned
that they may lose valid messages in this set of circumstances.
Participants publishing SPF experiment DNS records should consider the
advice given in section 3.4 of RFC XXXX (draft-lyon-senderid-core) and
may wish to publish both v=spf1 and v=spf2.0 records to avoid the
conflict."
Though it may not be entirely what we want, the extra text to the IESG Note
certainly doesn't hurt.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
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