Julian Mehnle wrote:
Don't you think this becomes clear from my IESG appeal (which
I'm going to include in the IAB appeal)?
If you include the old stuff it's all covered. I thought that
you might try to cut it down using the IESG appeal only as one
of several pointers.
For a substantial portion of mail (some say 80%, pointer to
one of Hector's article stating this) MAIL FROM and PRA are
different, as explained in (pointer to old appeal).
I'm not sure this can be considered even half representative.
What article was that again (URL)?
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss/17067/>
| 2822.PRA = 2821.MailFrom : 88%
So that would be a problem for 12% of the mails. There are 39
articles written by "Hector Santos" and archived by GMaNe with
a match for the string "80". I'm not going to check all, let's
forget it, "substantial portion" is good enough, and everybody
knows this.
I think we can only legitimately use the number of records
as a basis for our argument that were published before late
2004. This is what I did in the IESG appeal.
Right. But most readers of the v=spf1 spec. still see at best
its NOT RECOMMENDED. The new IESG NOTE with the senderid-core
recipe would be part of the RfC when it gets its number. It's
perfectly possible that somebody publishes a new v=spf1 without
expecting any PRA-trouble today.
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