Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt

In <[email protected]> Bruce Lilly <[email protected]> writes:

> On Thu March 3 2005 13:13, wayne wrote:
>
>> (Actually, off hand, I can't think of anything about SPF
>> that Dave does like, but...)
>
> He's not alone...

I understand, and I don't think it would be productive to rehash all
issues with SPF here.


>> They are pushing through both this SPF I-D, and the
>> Microsoft Sender-ID I-Ds, apparently without even an IETF last call.
>
> That would be a procedure violation, and could be appealed to the IAB.

Maybe, but it is pretty well shown here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/state_diagram.gif


>> The IETF seems to be a pretty funny organization.  They clearly value
>> politics over technical considerations.
>
> That's quite a broad brush you're trying to paint with.  Perhaps
> you fail to understand some of the technical arguments against SPF...

Until this I-D, the IETF never evaluated SPF.  They created a working
group (MARID) and created a new proposal (SenderID) that was based on
many ideas, including both SPF and Caller-ID.  However, neither of
those proposals were adopted by the IETF.  


>> I'm not sure that I want to 
>> go through the effort of trying to create a working group, knowing
>> that I don't have the political clout to keep things focused on
>> technical issues.
>
> Is that a perverse way of stating that a) those who understand the
> technical issues aren't interested in SPF and/or b) those who are
> interested in SPF are unable or unwilling to confront its technical
> defects?

There have been lively debates, open to all, about SPF on the
SPF-discuss mailing list since 2003.  Most SPF proponents, and the I-D
in question also, acknowledge that SPF has problems in certain cases.
But, as I said in a previous email, if there was a clean, simple
solution to the problem of email authnetication, I think it would have
been found years ago.


-wayne