Re: Comments requested on recent appeal to the IESG

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

 




On Feb 20, 2009, at 1:44 AM, John Levine wrote:

 http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/appeal-otis-2009-02-16.txt

This appeal boils down to "someone might misuse it so don't standardize it." Is there any standard to which someone couldn't have made a similar objection?

The appeal is in regard to offering recipients potentially misleading information where its source is intentionally omitted thus preventing reputation evaluation by the MUA as required by section 4.1.

Much of the bad stuff they say about SPF and Sender-ID is correct, but it'll be equally true whether or not a header reports the results.

I have reviewed the draft and find it to be technically sound.

Dave Crocker made a point about not necessitating the examination of a mechanism's internals when objecting to the inclusion of the IP address of the SMTP client. Dave Crocker was confused since this same input is also provided to an infrequently used "iprev" where this input is captured by the Authentication-Results header. However section 2.4.3. "SPF and Sender-ID Results" of the draft stipulates conditional inclusion of a local-part, but the local-part's role is not defined by the output of the "spf" mechanism. The "senderid" mechanism stipulates the local-part plays no role. Clearly, such source omission and conditional inclusion represents a technical error.

-Doug
_______________________________________________

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

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