Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-00

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 07 May 2013 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C227B21F905F for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 16:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.039
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gBu6aQYucb9B for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 16:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com (mail-wi0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F32F21F9023 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2013 16:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id hq12so4608314wib.3 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 May 2013 16:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=y07EDQn40kqEJnxU7qa2n/kBrdNXJVP+yFwCjukulBk=; b=tT3g+o63kUTgo00G5vMlTo4q4713R7C7NkE2hgFudvbXraIciuz94zqo9OwI/ormrk 8F6HuTWUlkE/+91tdnCzhheeqXRZJMK0l2yNGX9BUNRzRUM8av9Ho4FoUjlJloj9SL8n 4KQT2adIoOt6SJYj47cm2qTkwgxbgfM9ll4DQcAbb24/AftyDt5Xvt3tQq0dd3Ydl4Zt J4nYqR1iFzOvsGJ/t5OSNfYS+PmyFDZubQk/Uv+2MgvHLvaLhLJaNXaNTp6a4Mc0uAPF fGAahACML/GDcQ5L5nXkd907wjKqU0kBID/OdJMQCW6I2tD2dwebWyYtQsNKjoRaVycU pMkA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.79.69 with SMTP id h5mr17643338wix.14.1367967831201; Tue, 07 May 2013 16:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.14.34 with HTTP; Tue, 7 May 2013 16:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3043082.mLUHZvu3uC@scott-latitude-e6320>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130503141649.0d8252f0@elandnews.com> <CAL0qLwaMWbLbgAquXXnC1a_CRgu4zUgHwykc71_on2-99eAxww@mail.gmail.com> <518920D0.1040705@tana.it> <3043082.mLUHZvu3uC@scott-latitude-e6320>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 16:03:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYs3gXDrU9oQ8R6c8eCAe2=rx2NGH-W-gxBQ2eUY2H3Ag@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c062ea49f1804dc28d4f7
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-00
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 23:03:52 -0000

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> wrote:

> Trying to deconstruct an SPF record and make judgments based on it's
> internal
> structure is 'bad'.  All you can take is the SPF result.  If someone
> publishes
> v=spf +1, then it's 'pass'.  That's all you know.  There are enough other
> ways
> to make a functionally equivalent record that it's not worth worrying
> about.
>
>
>
I think the point is that "+all" is a possible example where local policy
at the receiver/verifier might be to downgrade an SPF "pass" to something
less positive.  All of that is true, but I would prefer to be generic in
making the facility available and letting receivers figure out what things
warrant such treatment.

-MSK