Julian Mehnle wrote:
we could approve an erratum specifying that v=spf1 be applicable
for PRA checks.
That's unlikely to get consensus, and one interpretation of the
IESG note would also make it redundant... :-(
Of course it would break most v=spf1 records.
No, it breaks only those policies where PRA != MAIL FROM cases are
"legit" as defined by the publisher of the policy. That's nowhere
near to "most", quite the contrary.
How serious are we about killing SenderID ? I think it's possible,
using the "standards process" and the magic word "updates 4406" or
similar.
The longer I think about PRA the more I come to the conclusion that
it's only a crude and unnecessary emulation of v=spf1 with no real
benefits of its own. Putting these conclusions in an I-D is a very
attractive plan, it's also what Keith recommended months ago (2005).
maybe we suddenly stopped caring about that? After all, RFC 4408
is just of "experimental" status, right?
Nobody here stopped caring about it, and "PRA" is certainly at the
core of the issues why v=spf1 is experimental. Now after the weird
anti-spam crowd moved on and has DKIM as new toy, we could clean up
this mess: v=spf1 got it right, PRA got it wrong. Tons of reasons,
all simple, clear, compelling, and strictly technical.
It's the purpose of an experiment to... (guess).
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/?list_id=735