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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 11:36 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: SPF discuss; Martin Duerst; Barry Leiba
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Proposed "spfbis" working group charter
> 
> 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 believe (Scott or Julian can confirm or correct me) that this comes from the fact that there's a definite community that wants to be able to do SPF based on the RFC5322.From domain, but not drag in the whole PRA algorithm.  That's what's going on here.

> 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.

I think adding the SPF options stuff in the initial charter is a non-starter.  We're trying to keep this as tight as possible.  But keep it in the wings when it comes time to re-charter.

-MSK