Re: Trouble with Sender Authentication

On Nov 6, 2006, at 3:12 PM, Julian Mehnle wrote:

> Douglas Otis wrote:
>> In Dusseldorf, Julian and Ming received *constructive* =20
>> recommendations to allow record scoping, but this was ignored and =20
>> became the basis for Julian's ignored complaint made to the IESG.
>
> Sorry to barge in on this particular topic (which is mostly =20
> unrelated to the issues raised by K.J. Petrie or the alleged DoS =20
> issue), but this ain't correct.  The v=3Dspf1/pra re-use issue was =20
> indeed discussed at the MAAWG meeting in D=FCsseldorf.  I'm not sure =20
> what you mean when you say that "allowing record scoping" was =20
> proposed, but what was actually proposed were two different things =20
> (depending on whom I talked to):
>
>  A. Accept the v=3Dspf1/pra re-use and start promoting v=3Dspf1 as =20
> having a
>     different meaning than what had been defined back in 2003.
>
>  B. Abandon v=3Dspf1 entirely in favor of spf2.0 (or some completely
>     different) scheme in order to avoid the misinterpretation of =20
> v=3Dspf1
>     records for PRA purposes.

It seems v=3Dspf1/pra will be more disruptive than spf2.0/mailfrom?  =20
What is your view about forcing use of different scripts?

-Doug