spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] Need for standardization in local part signing.

2006-01-24 03:23:57
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:26:55PM -0500, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
<snip>
However, there seem to be a number of localpart coding schemes that do not
follow the SRS/SES plan.

couldn't help noticing at the top ...

From listbox+trampoline+735+2169844+4bf648b9(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com  
Mon Jan 23 23:28:31 2006
From: "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>

not sure if you'll care about this kind of thing for your application,
but it seems like the same sort of thing to me.

1) What are the common localpart coding schemes other than SRS and SES?

see above: mailing lists.

2) How many different markers for the original localpart are there
(that we know about)?

3) Should establishing a standard separator for localpart signing 
prefixes be a future goal of SPF (after current RFC, yada, yada)?
Or is it too far off topic?  

it sounds like a nice idea, but see below.

or perhaps the topic is too narrow ?  ;)

It seems too trivial to have its own RFC.  

Is that such a bad thing ?

Where should such a standard go?

If it is possible to stem a potential tide of random diverse re-inventions
by standardisation, then I don't see why that isn't a sufficient reason
to exist in its own right.  The problem here would seem to be that maybe
the horse has already bolted ?  All these things are not extensions so 
much as local in-band encodings?

Regards,
Paddy
-- 
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall

-------
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