Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



In <17305.36224.584090.853821@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Dick St.Peters" <stpeters@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> 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
> [...]


I know you have worked quite a bit on Sendmail Inc.'s sid-milter for
them.  Perhaps you can answer some questions:


The draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 document is fairly long, some 17
pages.  This is the document that references the SPF-classic spec and
modifies the semantics for use by SenderID.  (There are two other
SenderID documents to describe the PRA and the SMTP SUBMITTER
extention.)

Can you list the semantic differences between SPF-classic and SenderID
that need to show up in implementations that support both?

Are they any at all?

If not, why does the senderid-core document need to be 17 pages long?

If there are, how many of them are correctly implemented by Sendmail
Inc's sid-milter?


Do you know if Sendmail Inc. is committed to conforming to the RFCs
and will change if the RFCs change?


-wayne



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]