nobody at xyzzy
Dec 2, 2007, 6:06 PM
Post #5 of 5
Julian Mehnle wrote:
> I am having serious trouble understanding what you are trying
> to say here. Can you please reword your thoughts in a more
> direct manner?
Wrt to a _given_ spf2.0/mfrom there are four cases:
1 - Only spf2.0/mfrom, no PRA, no v=spf1
2 - sf2.0/mfrom,pra (or v.v.), no v=spf1
3 - Any kind of spf2.0/mfrom, and v=spf1 matches it
4 - Any kind of spf2.0/mfrom, and v=spf1 different
Three additional cases without any spf2.0/mfrom:
5 - v=spf1, no PRA
6 - v=spf1 and spf2.0/pra
7 - Only PRA
Your statistics divides (1+2+3+4) / (1+2+3+4+5+6+7).
We're not interested in 7 (only PRA) for a comparison
of the spf2.0/mfrom and v=spf1 deployment.
If we're looking for trouble, that's any mfrom without
a matching v=spf1, (1+2+4) / (1+2+3+4).
Unfortunately I had no time this week to work on the
op=pra draft, I intend to deprecate it together with
any spf2.0/mfrom leaving only v=spf1 and spf2.0/pra.
The two years for the "experiments" ended three months
ago, it's time to start the cleanup.
Checking the IETF Last Call version of 2821bis, TLDs
are now permitted, no more "one dot only" rule. I'll
delete the corresponding wannabe 4408-erratum. We're
down to one unclear case.
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=71353458-25d1e4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com