Re: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01.txt

Douglas Otis <[email protected]> wrote:
> One major assumption needing corrected is the assumed scope implied by
> an v=spf1 record.  There are vendors able to exercise significant
> influence with respect to their view of the scope implied by this
> record.  You have another group that feels they can declare a default
> scope, in a manner they consider appropriate, albeit in conflict.

  This is a political issue, and not a flaw in the technical proposal.

> SPF is handing a dangerous tool to the domain owner without advising
> them of the serious risks they assume when publishing.  I find that
> outrageous.

  As you've said.  The proponents have disagreed, and "never the twain
shall meet."

> I offered suggestions that a domain assertion could be added to the CSV
> record that indicates all of a domain's emails are signed.

  Which is a great idea.

  Alan DeKok.