Re: jSPF 0.9.6 passing RFC 4408 test suite 2007.05; no more "reference implementations"!

Julian Mehnle ha scritto:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> with 2008.08 jSPF 0.9.6 fails the macromania test because %- and %_ are
>> incorrectly expanded to - and _.
>> I fixed that as soon as I saw the macromania test in openspf testsuite.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> jSPF 0.9.6 conforms to (and includes) rfc4408-tests-2007.05.yml
>> The next release will pass the current specification. The only known
>> issue with jSPF 0.9.6 is the macro expansion above.
> 
> Got it.  I listed jSPF as compliant with 2007.05 since 0.9.6:
> 
>   http://www.openspf.org/Implementations

:-)

> In the process, I removed the entire "reference implementations" section.  
> It was controversial from the beginning, and its entire purpose was to 
> get the old Mail::SPF::Query deprecated gracefully, which once upon a 
> time actually _was_ the reference implementation.  It would have been 
> hard to overcome M:S:Q's "reference implementation" character without 
> serving any replacement, however now that we do have a number of high 
> quality implementations as well as a solid compliance testing concept 
> (the test suite with its release scheme), there isn't a need for having 
> dedicated "reference implementations" anymore.

make sense.

>> [...]
>> At ASF (Apache Software Foundation) we have a strict release process
>> and we never recommend the use of snapshots and we never point users to
>> nightlies or snapshots.
> 
> So let's NOT say anything like "2008.08: trunk" in addition to "2007.05: 
> since 0.9.6".

that's perfect.

>> If you tell me that it won't take 2 more years to update the page I'll
>> ask a new run as soon as we'll release 0.9.7.  We'll probably wait a bit 
>> more because we want to include newer dns libraries so to fix any
>> Kaminsky DNS vulnerability and a race issue in the asynchronous version
>> of our resolver.
> 
> Please do.  Now that we've reasonably established that 0.9.6 passes 
> 2007.05, there's little speaking against giving you the benefit of the 
> doubt and _right_away_ listing 0.9.7 as passing 2008.08, but that might 
> confuse users who then go looking for 0.9.7 despite it not having been 
> released yet.

I agree that it is better to not list 0.9.7 until we officially release it.

Thank you,
Stefano