Mailing List Archive: SPF: Discuss

Re: [apps-discuss] Proposed "spfbis" working group charter

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz at gmail

Nov 13, 2011, 11:35 PM

Post #1 of 3 (823 views)
Permalink

Re: [apps-discuss] Proposed "spfbis" working group charter

On 14 November 2011 07:31, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> that document proposes an extension to SPF called "scope", but
> doesn't contain any scope definition for the proposed working
> group.

IMHO one of the results of "the experiment" was that nobody needs
any SPF "scopes" or "options" in addition to its baroque features.

E.g., the fine print of a "pra scope" in spf2.0/pra vs. a different
"mfrom scope" in spf2.0/mfrom, which is in essence the same as
RFC 4408 v=spf1 excluding a hypothetical "helo scope" spf2.0/helo,
is just too confusing and not helpful for all involved parties.

I'd be willing to revive the "SPF options" draft with some caveats
wrt new modifiers, but actually I'd prefer to stay away from any
spf2.0/scope constructs. I'm not aware of new "scope" discussions
on SPF discuss for some years.

-Frank

-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ [http://www.listbox.com/member/]

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/1311532-17d8a1ba
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-f2ea6ed9
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-bdbb122a&post_id=20111114023641:63FF28CC-0E93-11E1-8673-EB6921DB2415
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

msk at cloudmark

Nov 13, 2011, 11:46 PM

Post #2 of 3 (801 views)
Permalink

RE: [apps-discuss] Proposed "spfbis" working group charter [In reply to]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz [at] gmail]
> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 11:36 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: SPF discuss; Martin Duerst; Barry Leiba
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Proposed "spfbis" working group charter
>
> IMHO one of the results of "the experiment" was that nobody needs any
> SPF "scopes" or "options" in addition to its baroque features.
>
> E.g., the fine print of a "pra scope" in spf2.0/pra vs. a different
> "mfrom scope" in spf2.0/mfrom, which is in essence the same as RFC 4408
> v=spf1 excluding a hypothetical "helo scope" spf2.0/helo, is just too
> confusing and not helpful for all involved parties.

I believe (Scott or Julian can confirm or correct me) that this comes from the fact that there's a definite community that wants to be able to do SPF based on the RFC5322.From domain, but not drag in the whole PRA algorithm. That's what's going on here.

> I'd be willing to revive the "SPF options" draft with some caveats wrt
> new modifiers, but actually I'd prefer to stay away from any
> spf2.0/scope constructs. I'm not aware of new "scope" discussions on
> SPF discuss for some years.

I think adding the SPF options stuff in the initial charter is a non-starter. We're trying to keep this as tight as possible. But keep it in the wings when it comes time to re-charter.

-MSK

-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ [http://www.listbox.com/member/]

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/1311532-17d8a1ba
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-f2ea6ed9
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-bdbb122a&post_id=20111114024615:B9AAA2E6-0E94-11E1-AB23-FE048B940326
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz at gmail

Nov 14, 2011, 12:03 AM

Post #3 of 3 (798 views)
Permalink

Re: [apps-discuss] Proposed "spfbis" working group charter [In reply to]

On 14 November 2011 08:46, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

[spf2.0/author, apparently]
> I believe (Scott or Julian can confirm or correct me) that this comes from
> the fact that there's a definite community that wants to be able to do SPF
> based on the RFC5322.From domain, but not drag in the whole PRA algorithm.
>�That's what's going on here.

That is a seriously dead draft written by Wayne Schlitt many many years ago:
draft-schlitt-marid-spf-from-hdr-00 (2005)

Inventing something "better than PRA" is doomed, PRA is as good as possible,
and as we know not good enough. We had similar troubles in the DKIM WG with
attempts to do "something interesting" with the From header... Until folks
started to grok the Resent-From: details, or the required Sender: if there
is more than one From: author.

This is a hopeless case, the only clean solution would be a "PRA", and nobody
wants the "PRA", notably 5322 and 4409bis do not really support the concept.

-Frank

-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ [http://www.listbox.com/member/]

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/1311532-17d8a1ba
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-f2ea6ed9
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-bdbb122a&post_id=20111114030419:4000B8C4-0E97-11E1-AFC2-B20BB85B10AF
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads