IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-07.txt

Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com> Tue, 24 April 2012 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <spf2@kitterman.com>
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 B167021E80BE for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.584
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 1r2xWXHV-wse for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9485821E80B9 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BF8420E40E9; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:27:47 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1335295674; bh=jyNXJoCFGi3UlnxI+c1EWk15TRpfmqZeVUu/s5BhOuc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; b=R0Nj9jj9EbbTYrVNP+ObCL0xu290xOjQkXDgp2MVpH9yEnh0+Ttgl7jij6v4mnM67 jyEEJbExTelQg5iZW9WBP3XAHBKkALkiLigkrRXSwQLCiBQ0sx13h32xMhT0t+9/gk qHsj4ZhsaTrFpZTwDm5ydssnZrU/0D9/Snh+8oF8=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D65620E4089; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:27:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:27:46 -0400
Message-ID: <4254996.5MjnMl37EW@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.8.2 (Linux/3.2.0-23-generic-pae; KDE/4.8.2; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20120424190442.3697.25094.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20120424190442.3697.25094.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [spfbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-07.txt
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: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:27:55 -0000

"The two protocols made use of this same policy statement and some specific 
(but different) logic to evaluate whether  the email client sending or relaying 
a message was authorized to do so." still really bothers me because I think it 
is factually incorrect.

SPF designated a policy statement record and used it.  Sender ID designated a 
policy statement record and used both it and the SPF record.  Papering this 
over is wrong.

I don't expect it to change, but, FWIW, I really disapprove.  Other than that, 
I agree it's ready for last call.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email