On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 10:23 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: <snip> > I do not believe that one group should be able to block a proposal they > do not like by alleging a non-existent conflict.
A conflict does exist interpreting v=spf1 records in a PRA scope. I had a customer who was a victim of joe-jobbing. We use separate domains for RFC821 and RFC822 identities. The RFC821 identity (MAIL FROM) would never be used as a RFC822 identity (FROM). RFC821 FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFC822 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Before Sender-ID came I had this: brand.esp.com IN TXT "v=spf1 -all" This means if brand.esp.com was ever seen as a RFC821 MAIL FROM domain, it could be considered a forgery. Along comes Sender-ID, reusing v=spf1 records for PRA tests. Microsoft then decides to put a warning for those records that fail Sender-ID tests for its Hotmail/MSN users. Since Sender-ID checks RFC822 identities against a record meant for RFC821 identities, it gets an erroneous FAIL. This is what I believe is the conflict. It is real. It exists. In order to get correct results I have to publish 2 records in DNS: brand.esp.com IN TXT "spfv2.0/pra a:outbound.brand.esp.com -all" brand.esp.com IN TXT "v=spf1 -all" OR (this one opts out of Sender-ID): brand.esp.com IN TXT "spfv2.0/pra" brand.esp.com IN TXT "v=spf1 -all" This also means that to participate in one experiment I have to participate in another. That seems wrong to me. -- :: Jeff Macdonald | Principal Engineer, Messaging Technologies :: e-Dialog | [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421 :: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118 :: www.e-dialog.com _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
