On 1/25/12 9:13 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 08:54:42 AM Douglas Otis wrote:
> What happens when the client and server do not share the same
> version of Internet Protocol and one of their Internet providers
> compensates by translating between the two?
This use of SPF is no different than any other, so it's no better or
worse here. I don't think your theories about how SPF will make the
Internet melt are on topic in the MARF working group.
Dear Scott,
A requirement for an SPF PASS seems illogical for assessing SPF failure
feedback. Disparities involving use of different IP protocols seems
poorly considered in this case, does it not?
The SPF macro concern is also unlikely to impact the email providers
facilitating a targeted attack.
What prevents use of DKIM as the only required vetting for feedback?
> This might lead to nonsensical SPF records containing
> "exists:icann.org" or ending with "+all".
No specification can ensure people don't do odd things.
A specification should not require a protocol that expects an
inappropriate processing of macros, nor should it inhibit the
communications that it intends to support.
Regards,
Doug Otis
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
