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

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Tue, 07 May 2013 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.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 2793821F8E6D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 16:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
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 jaJCUPShMW3m for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 16:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088CA21F8518 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2013 16:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20DEE20E411A; Tue, 7 May 2013 19:01:31 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1367967691; bh=nvuxhOYNiQ8E568SsaQJ9TruvGrBBTSLIsgP/vECnXk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=BkM7Yo1FVs2M6MWZdBzLhsvLWHyCe+0Py/EsE/Gtd5A3G3TgdRPdUXoa8vn8tOTXy aTkMdqIbGX/tNJppMyUYQ4pFtrwXr2otAW62CmWuXANrs8zIZmrBLBztbYXtS37Km/ 0xPntRjjaOGM5euaiW7ijMeu+NmAr9asjMMKHo+I=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (10.sub-70-192-200.myvzw.com [70.192.200.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F336720E40F0; Tue, 7 May 2013 19:01:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 19:01:29 -0400
Message-ID: <3043082.mLUHZvu3uC@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.10.2 (Linux/3.8.0-19-generic; KDE/4.10.2; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <518920D0.1040705@tana.it>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130503141649.0d8252f0@elandnews.com> <CAL0qLwaMWbLbgAquXXnC1a_CRgu4zUgHwykc71_on2-99eAxww@mail.gmail.com> <518920D0.1040705@tana.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
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 23:01:42 -0000

On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 05:42:08 PM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> >>    The "policy" result would be returned if, for example, [SPF]
> >>    returned as "pass" result, but the local policy check finds that
> >>    the sender's policy is unacceptable (e.g. terminates with "+all").
> >
> > 
> >
> > I don't agree with including that specific example, as it encourages a
> > particular local policy debate that I don't think this document should
> > approach.
> 
> I thought abhorring +all was uncontroversial.

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.

Scott K