On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:57:04 -0500 (EST) "Stuart D. Gathman"
<stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
It looks like we'll need a mechanism to establish an official SPF
project
position on this. I think we need to elect a new SPF Council.
The forwarded message reminds us that it is more than time that we write
another SPF standard. By "we" I vaguely mean this list. Of course someone
should take the burden to actually operate the required IETF procedures.
Frank and Wayne have submitted relevant RFC errata. Are Wayne and Meng,
the
authors of the current RFC, still on this list? Did they say they are not
going to [co-]author a new release? If yes, is that the origin of the
RFC5378-related problem?
Why is it necessary to write a new standard? It works well, and
education on things like handling secondary MXes (and "forwarders")
properly when checking SPF is what is needed.
Or is it just a matter of incorporating the errata?
If we start throwing v=spf3 records out there, then that will begin to
double the amount of DNS TXT/SPF data flying around. There had
better be a good reason beyond adding our favorite features
(like ! prefix for NOT on mechanisms :-) ).
I agree. The one hard bug in the current spec that I think drives us to
needing a new RFC (but not a new record type) is the treatment of all DNS
errors as temperrors. Not all DNS errors are temporary. I've had to not
default to deferring on temperror for this reason.
Scott K
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com