Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")

In <[email protected]> Tony Finch <[email protected]> writes:

> On Thu, 26 May 2005, wayne wrote:
>>
>> These I-Ds also call for a new version number to be used, which is good,
>> but then these I-Ds say that the new semantics should be applied to
>> SPFv1 records, which is REALLY bad.
>
> I strongly agree. This makes it impossible to use SPF's baroqueness to
> advantage, e.g. by using BATV with stunt DNS servers, and other clever
> tricks.

If you agree that this is really bad, I encourage you to tell
[email protected] about this.

I had placed a warning about these problems in the spf-classic I-D
submitted early this year, but someone took it upon themselves,
without informing either Meng nor me, to remove this warning.  In the
lastest SPF-classic I-D, the SPF community came up with what I think
is a nice paragraph on the subject, with an explict reference to just
such stunt DNS server as you describe.  (See sections 2.4 and 9.3.1.2)


-wayne