-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dick St.Peters wrote: > Julian Mehnle writes: > > As my appeal[1] pointed out, at the time draft-lyon-senderid-core-00 > > was submitted for experimental status, there was no "running code" > > that actually interpreted "v=spf1" as "spf2.0/mfrom,pra". > > Perhaps you shouldn't have said that. Sendmail's sid-milter has used > v=spf1 records for PRA checks since its initial release in August > 2004. I don't know the date for draft-lyon-senderid-core-00, but I > believe it was well after August. draft-lyon-senderid-core-00 was submitted in October 2004. However, I again quote from my appeal[1]: | So when Mark Lentczner changed[2] the version identifier to "spf2.0" in | draft-ietf-marid-protocol-01 in the aftermath[3,4] of IETF-60, there was | clearly a consensus to avoid the use of "v=spf1" records for checking of | PRA or other unexpected identities. So if in August 2004 the Sendmail people chose to make sid-milter use "v=spf1" records, they clearly did it against IETF consensus. I don't think this practice should be sanctioned ex post despite them having ignored that consensus. References: 1. http://www.xyzzy.claranet.de/home/test/senderid-appeal.htm 2. http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03282.html 3. http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03164.html 4. http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03081.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDmaFBwL7PKlBZWjsRAh3CAJ45xjeJVpa83TE5cXwEaevCPBgbLACgn+If PfEMgfRvhPQVTqyb+/eZ9tc= =MaiF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf