Re: [apps-discuss] Proposed "spfbis" working group charter

On 14 November 2011 07:31, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> that document proposes an extension to SPF called "scope", but
> doesn't contain any scope definition for the proposed working
> group.

IMHO one of the results of "the experiment" was that nobody needs
any SPF "scopes" or "options" in addition to its baroque features.

E.g., the fine print of a "pra scope" in spf2.0/pra vs. a different
"mfrom scope" in spf2.0/mfrom, which is in essence the same as
RFC 4408 v=spf1 excluding a hypothetical "helo scope" spf2.0/helo,
is just too confusing and not helpful for all involved parties.

I'd be willing to revive the "SPF options" draft with some caveats
wrt new modifiers, but actually I'd prefer to stay away from any
spf2.0/scope constructs.  I'm not aware of new "scope" discussions
on SPF discuss for some years.

-Frank