Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14
"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 20 April 2013 19:46 UTC
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 D148921F925B for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 12:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -111.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 EkCriYfi2o3m for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 12:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C537121F926E for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 12:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 54480 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2013 19:48:06 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 20 Apr 2013 19:48:06 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=5172f099.xn--3zv.k1304; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=FspSb5Bbmt6WtImLa4N3tnlSs5cQ+cJ6cB0WXERgImM=; b=ihPo7ufo6kiMN4wnvQ9/9peZ4Tc10zDPw3WGKqO01JzE59P6JuHh8beQQnu3wRP/mo5EUIBcONATNY++4G8sEvdTAKs5YvaeUTgXJs1dlGhAsuW2wMupYk0Gjak0Tsd6l52mnq0zRcSDx/mtZZEr7W/XiEdBW21iv5yZD6rS234=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=5172f099.xn--3zv.k1304; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=FspSb5Bbmt6WtImLa4N3tnlSs5cQ+cJ6cB0WXERgImM=; b=UXRfvB55bQkvGkEzTk9xSUp9Dj48yNC+5Zu0vW39JeENeB3h01MLf2WHD5EB0fh/MIEqv5izcRg1bwd6mZ7bDocEHM/tx5Jm6TjqQZtApQCqIeg3iej5KbaZ97jW0aRWYqSS5HCQBVK9OLNG8k1f4IyEWOCS1aGLrO5JiPQTFuc=
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:46:10 -0000
Message-ID: <20130420194610.46217.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <3819226.HNrkiDGy6d@scott-latitude-e6320>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: spf2@kitterman.com
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: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:46:36 -0000
These are mostly nits. I'm not worrying about typos and minor grammatical issues, since the skilled staff at the RFC production center will find them better than I do. 2.1 HELO identity Checking "HELO" promotes consistency of results and can reduce DNS resource usage. I understand the consistency, but how does doing two lookups rather than one reduce DNS resource usage? Suggest just removing the second clause. 2.4 Checking Authorization Without explicit approval of the domain owner, checking other identities against SPF version 1 records is NOT RECOMMENDED because there are cases that are known to give incorrect results. For example, almost all mailing lists rewrite the "MAIL FROM" identity (see Section 10.3), but some do not change any other identities in the message. Documents that define other identities will have to define the method for explicit approval. I realize that this paragraph translates to "Sender-ID sucks", but as it stands it raises more questions than it answers, e.g., how would a receiver know what a domain owner approves, and what should I check then. Since Sender-ID is dead, I suggest removing it. When a mail receiver decides to perform an SPF check, it MUST use a correctly-implemented check_host() function (Section 4) evaluated with the correct parameters. Although the test as a whole is optional, once it has been decided to perform a test it has to be performed as specified so that the correct semantics are preserved between publisher and receiver. If people haven't already figured out that they have to implement the spec correctly, this won't help. I suggest removing it. 2.6. Results of Evaluation An SPF verifier implements something semantically identical to the function defined there. Suggest "semantically equivalent" to match langauge in Sec 4. 3. SPF Records The SPF record is a single string of text. Suggest "The SPF record is interpreted as a single string of text" since in fact the record may well have several strings. 8.4. Fail Suggest moving everything after the first paragraph to App. H.2. since it's basically an example. 8.5. Softfail Suggest moving everything after the first paragraph to a new subsection of App. H. Please do our users a favor and remove the bad advice about highlighting failures in MUAs. 9.2. SPF Results in the Authentication-Results Header Field Odd bug in the xml, the last para and example are switched in the html output. R's, John
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 John Levine
- [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Dotzero
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Tim Draegen
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Dotzero
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Tim Draegen
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Commerco WebMaster
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 -… Stuart Gathman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 -… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 -… Kurt Andersen
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 -… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 -… John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 -… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 -… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 -… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 -… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 -… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 -… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 -… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 -… Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 -… Stuart Gathman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 -… Stuart Gathman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 -… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Stuart Gathman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Douglas Otis
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Stuart D Gathman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Douglas Otis
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 John Leslie
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Douglas Otis
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Mark Andrews
- [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic (was: WGLC: draft-ietf-… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic (was: WGLC: draft-i… Mark Andrews
- Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic (was: WGLC: draft-i… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic (was: WGLC: draft-i… Mark Andrews
- Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic (was: WGLC: draft-i… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic (was: WGLC: draft-i… Mark Andrews
- Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic (was: WGLC: draft-i… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic (was: WGLC: draft-i… Mark Andrews
- Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic (was: WGLC: draft-i… Douglas Otis
- Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic Stuart D Gathman
- Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic Stuart Gathman
- Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic Scott Kitterman