spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] Re: [RFC State] <draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02> has changed state

2006-02-06 15:56:16
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:

The title doesn't make clear that SPF is rfc2821 vs rfc2822
for Sender-ID.

spf2.0 is for both.  And v=spf1 has the core syntax for spf2.0,
plus error handling, plus processing limits, plus DNS lookups.
plus Received-SPF, plus type 99 SPF RR, all shared with spf2.0.

So far for the weird theory that we don't cooperate with spf2.0
where possible (wasn't your theory, but William mentioned it in
his summary).

This is IMNSHO really not the time to change the f****ng title.
In fact all changes have to be authorized by Meng and Wayne.  

Even if Mark's title "Authorizing Use of Domains in MAIL FROM"
or Meng's older "A Convention to Describe Hosts Authorized to
Send SMTP Traffic" were somewhat better.  We can't undo spf2.0.

We can only say that PRA doesn't work with v=spf1.  Bye, Frank


-------
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