IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05

Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com> Sun, 22 April 2012 21:38 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 05EF621F85A1 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:38:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, 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 KBM83cvkX4Yx for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7110821F851B for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 027CF20E40E0; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 17:38:15 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1335130695; bh=/2ox2TaM919uaJbXKLqG+YyRr+JDJ0SlADFgEs9S8T0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; b=H1BksH2wQVux+LgKsDaNAVDQqRvXZDRAzBwAaGtnV3HUMrcCMhRbfg+wOTLfpy0k4 aVxe39tozKt7qR1EfqMYiRFavGMrtj9pNA1SkNZNYlcNrHPE41Rt2P4IL94dXfYei0 /VZOb+sxWompZL6CDK16ypjl3zM/wtSgOZNcwrxM=
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 D811520E4091; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 17:38:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 17:38:14 -0400
Message-ID: <3850142.Cln9WJldGb@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.8.2 (Linux/3.2.0-23-generic-pae; KDE/4.8.2; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FEA8F@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <CAC4RtVAV5PH+VMzppVxAQgGq0f28ARN846e17G_8sbLCThm-KA@mail.gmail.com> <27817694.IMgqELHbEC@scott-latitude-e6320> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FEA8F@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.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] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:38:19 -0000

On Sunday, April 22, 2012 09:27:59 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: spfbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:spfbis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> > Of Scott Kitterman Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 2:13 PM
> > To: spfbis@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05
> > 
> > The current text is correct.  The issue was Sender ID reusing SPF
> > policy statements (of which there were a large number published before
> > this change was introduced into Sender ID) not a generic "they both use
> > the same data".
> 
> Is it necessary to be that precise in this document's context?

It was an important enough issue at the time that IESG [1] and IAB [2] appeals 
on the practice were filed.  I think pretending that this was an even handed 
data reuse issue is flat out wrong.  In short, on this issue, yes.

Scott K

[1] http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/mehnle-2005-08-25.txt
[2] http://www.iab.org/appeals/2006-2/appeal-against-iesg-decision-by-julian-
mehnle-8-february-2006/

P.S. This is unrelated to the question of hard feelings about MARID, which we 
are supposed to avoid.  This is related to post-MARID design decisions made by 
Microsoft.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email