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

Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com> Mon, 22 April 2013 14:26 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 AA5E211E80A6 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, 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 vGuN5moVlSNm for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8B5211E80A3 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5693720E410C; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:26:08 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1366640768; bh=9hWq2uF0KneAnz0Bh5o2gPlRmSKl9eDW0BxCjWBYGl8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=iVSHY6PGMs7owzd/eevXVRYK0z7sZsoj/jFSS5JPLfP5qui3J3jUhQj3EOAvkKzJU yjL0J+9BxhPc0Glasikjs+ODzsEHYQ1fT1FtU8S/iJ45KW4NafH50vu73S0Z68gwlq sAOkDluSew5HMFnR8lg56UYASgW8JtiU7/tdBvwY=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B55E20E40CD; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:26:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:26:07 -0400
Message-ID: <6835793.IxuTqepqcv@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.5.0-27-generic; KDE/4.9.5; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <5174F0F4.2090805@tana.it>
References: <20130409062431.GK24624@mx1.yitter.info> <c8b6e94c-339a-499e-a9ec-8be1527e5214@email.android.com> <5174F0F4.2090805@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: [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 14:26:10 -0000

On Monday, April 22, 2013 10:12:36 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> 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:

Sorry about that.  That's what I get  for not looking in the draft for 
context, I didn't realize you were quoting.

>  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.

I think hostname is sufficiently standard that it's OK to use there and 
appropriate because we're generally referring to the name of and individual 
host and not a domain that may have multiple hosts.  

Any other opinions?

Scott K
> spfbis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis