On Sun, 30 Apr 2006, Julian Mehnle wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
William Leibzon wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
but then I recognized that note might actually serve to invite people
to trust the SPF spec when it says that "checking other [non-envelope]
identities against SPF version 1 records is NOT RECOMMENDED because
there are cases that are known to give incorrect results".
Ever thought of why IESG note always goes in the beginning of RFC and
not in the end? That's right - everyone reads at least the abstract and
introduction (and maybe few additional pages) but only few read all the
RFC text and notice every detail.
Still, everyone who wants to implement (or even just publish) Sender-ID
needs to read the SPFv1 spec.
They *need to* but they will not. I know for certain that quite a few software
network engineers do not read RFCs of the protocol they are working on.
Now, most of the time what is used are existing stacks and libraries, but
even then there are quite a few bugs that come up because people do not
know details of the protocols they are working with. So don't count on
having everyone notice this note unless we are able to make enough of the
publicity of the issues and actually point people to that note.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
-------
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