On Sat, 18 Jul 2009, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Do we really want to alter the specs to the point that v1 and v3 yield
different results? I hope we don't. SPF is quite stable and functional _now_.
I'd expect the time required for stability to be proportional to the number
and depth of changes. Hence, in general, the fewer changes the better.
v3 would just add new mechanisms or prefixes that could shorten policies,
and of course move to the SPF RR type. And yes, the changes should be
few. Only a few features will be chosen from all the ideas put forth.
IMO, no attempt should be made to deploy a v3 until v1 has an official
RFC. But now is the time to start listing things we wish we could
fix in v1 for the eventual v3.
One thing we can do for an official v1 RFC, is clarify things
like SPF-V vs SPF-G.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------------------------------------------
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