Re: So here it is one year later...

In <[email protected]> Andrew Newton <[email protected]> writes:

> On Jan 29, 2005, at 12:32 AM, wayne wrote:
>> For
>> some strange reason, the IETF is now considering the SenderID drafts
>> that still use the same records.  Go figure.
>
> If by same records, you mean anything TXT then I'm afraid you will
> have to live with that... and any other new uses for TXT that come
> along.

Nope, I see no problem with using TXT RRs.  (The same goes for CSV's
use of SRV records or MAPS's use of A records.)

>> So, not rubber-stamping SPF wasn't a problem.  Creating a new spec
>> that changed the semantics of SPF records was.
>
> But I suppose you mean the v=spf1 records and agree that you have a
> point.... which is not what I thought you were saying.  Sorry for
> jumping to conclusions.

Actually, reviewing things, I shouldn't have jumped so hard on MARID
changing things.  When MARID decided to do a design-by-committee of a
new system, rarely a wise idea, it didn't change the SPF-classic
specifications.  New systems don't have backward compatibility
problems.

The real problem was that the draft-lentczner-spf-00 I-D did not
eliminate all the incompatibilities that the MARID SenderID I-Ds
created.  Hence the creation of draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.


-wayne