Re: Trouble with Sender Authentication

--nextPart3016901.vpxvcZr6IP
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Douglas Otis wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2006, at 3:12 PM, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > Douglas Otis wrote:
> > > In Dusseldorf, Julian and Ming received *constructive*
> > > recommendations to allow record scoping, but this was ignored and
> > > became the basis for Julian's ignored complaint made to the IESG.
> >
> > Sorry to barge in on this particular topic (which is mostly
> > unrelated to the issues raised by K.J. Petrie or the alleged DoS
> > issue), but this ain't correct.  The v=3Dspf1/pra re-use issue was
> > indeed discussed at the MAAWG meeting in D=C3=BCsseldorf.  I'm not sure
> > what you mean when you say that "allowing record scoping" was
> > proposed, but what was actually proposed were two different things
> > (depending on whom I talked to):
> >
> >  A. Accept the v=3Dspf1/pra re-use and start promoting v=3Dspf1 as
> >     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
> >     v=3Dspf1 records for PRA purposes.
>
> It seems v=3Dspf1/pra will be more disruptive than spf2.0/mailfrom?

If you mean that the interpretation of v=3Dspf1 for the PRA scope would be=
=20
more disruptive than recommending that everyone publish spf2.0 (essen-=20
tially what B says) instead of v=3Dspf1, then, yes, I'd agree.

> What is your view about forcing use of different scripts?

I don't understand what you're suggesting here.  What do you mean by
"forcing use of different scripts"?


--nextPart3016901.vpxvcZr6IP
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBFUOZbwL7PKlBZWjsRAmdvAKCh1YnSBx8UjwN6KvRRLejTcBEyhQCfXTcb
1SwX01gV6tafOOYf/0+XQpo=
=zbEU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart3016901.vpxvcZr6IP--