wayne wrote:
> For example, the SenderID I-D talks about DNS zone cuts and
> such, which were in earlier drafts of the SPF spec, but were
> removed from the final draft
Their May 2005 draft still references your December 2004 state:
| If the PRA version of the test is being performed and no
| records remain, the requirement in [SPF] to find the Zone Cut
| and repeat the above steps is OPTIONAL.
That has to be removed. You sent this to the authors and the
IESG, and they all ignored it ?
> even the evaluation of the "mfrom" part is not wholely
> compatible.
In practice nobody implements spf2.0/mfrom, so this is only a
theoretical incompatibility, and removing the quoted paragraph
could fix it.
> Many, but not all, of these semantic differences are minor.
Dick's idea "let's ignore %{h}" is certainly interesting. ;-)
IIRC that was a MARID concept, the first thing you put back
into spf-classic to reflect SPF's status-quo-antea. How is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] supposed to work without %{h} ?
AFAIK spf2.0/mfrom (and even spf2.0/pra) inherit %{h} from
v=spf1. Otherwise a wannabe-spf2.0 implementation is broken.
> It really is not clear at all what exactly these differences
< are, why they exist, and what the ramifications are.
For the positional modifiers in spf2.0 I could sing it, but in
practice it's of course irrelevant: So far there is not one
implemented new modifier, let alone any positional modifier.
That's the complete list of semantic differences I'm aware of.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
