In <1118709257.26495.86.camel@thunk> Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@xxxxxxx> writes: > While I have not been following this issue particularly closely, this > appears to be a case where two experiments are using the same codepoint > to enode data with (allegedly) different meaning. Indeed this is the case. Originally, most of these records were published under the draft-mengwong-spf-* SPF specifications. During the MARID WG lifetime, there was an attempt to merger the SPF and CallerID proposals, with the reuse of the SPF records. However, as time went by, it became increasingly clear that there were cases where such reuse would cause problems and at IETF-60, it was ruled that the MARID protocol needed to use a different version number. When the MARID WG was closed, authors were asked to submit their drafts as individual submissions. At this point, the I-Ds were changed to again reuse the SPFv1 records. Two examples of where these two experiments will give different results are documented in the spf-classic I-D in section 2.4. See: http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02.html#anchor6 (note: this same I-D is available from the IETF website, but not in HTML form so I can't give an link to the correct section.) In partciular, mailing lists are known to give different results: http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02.html#mailing-lists Also, one of the open issues with SPF is the ability to deal with forwarded email. One of the most promising solutions to this problem will break if the MARID proposal is used. See section 9.3.1.2: http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02.html#forwarding Far more cases have been documented on both the MARID list and on the spf-discuss list. I'm sorry I don't immediately have the references. -wayne _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf