Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 22 April 2013 08:12 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 046AF21F8E42 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 01:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 eqChZggdDumV for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 01:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8621321F8DBB for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 01:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1366618356; bh=8bbPX7CEvhUFgE8DgMiEcpX2Ux8wHBM089CAs4u5RUE=; l=1501; h=Date:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=YmXR9fFx/rtbQ+WBuPbka8mfyLtFy/RDeeDV8fuhgAHn1JqE+PtTwSmgfFlmHvJJ5 Wv723w/rwFNHci+x+UVrcVbty4XwO/aj/8Mjl9SrAAGhLFfJZP476lphPqNx7zyMdJ Qi38o0s6517mJ13DYVStp6mMCDChtOL5gMExPlk4=
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.101] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.101]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:12:36 +0200 id 00000000005DC035.000000005174F0F4.00003690
Message-ID: <5174F0F4.2090805@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:12:36 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: spfbis@ietf.org
References: <20130409062431.GK24624@mx1.yitter.info> <9424963.YHzqPUZEKJ@scott-latitude-e6320> <517030ED.20501@tana.it> <5830786.tCECZPYMZs@scott-latitude-e6320> <5173D2CA.6010008@tana.it> <c8b6e94c-339a-499e-a9ec-8be1527e5214@email.android.com>
In-Reply-To: <c8b6e94c-339a-499e-a9ec-8be1527e5214@email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:12:47 -0000

On Sun 21/Apr/2013 16:29:05 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
>
>>>> 10.1.2. Administrator's Considerations
>>>> [...]
>>
>> Perhaps:
>>
>>  Domain names can refer to both individual hosts or mail domains.
>>  Albeit "HELO" identities happen to be individual hosts more frequently
>>  than "MAIL FROM", either can be used to form an email address, and
>>  "HELO" can be the only identity available.  A standard SPF record
>>  for an individual host that is involved in mail sending is:
>>
>>?
> 
> Generally v=spf1 a -all works. One can also specify the IP address
> directly with ip4/ip6.  I don't see a need to add text about this.

Yeah, no doubt about the record content.  The paragraph quoted from my
previous message was meant to e a possible replacement for:

 The hostname is generally the identity used in the 5321.HELO/.EHLO
 command.  In the case of messages with a null 5321.MailFrom, this is
 used as the domain for 5321.MailFrom SPF checks, in addition to being
 used in 5321.HELO/.EHLO based SPF checks.  The standard SPF record
 for an individual host that is involved in mail processing is:

At least, for uniformity with the rest of the document, replacement of
the terms defined in Sections 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 ought to be done.  The
term "hostname" is used once more in the I-D, and I propose a
replacement it in order to make the text smoother in Section 10.1.2.

Please do what you think is better.  Thank you for editing.