Re: change of version string

[George Mitchell <george@xxxxxxx>]

At Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:40:19 -0700, Ted Hardie <hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> At 7:14 PM -0400 8/9/04, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
> >
> >While such a change is, from the standpoint of architectural
> >purity, absolutely the correct thing to do, I fear that in
> >practice it may lead to confusion, needless duplication of
> >records, and a failure to achieve the intended objective.
> >In other words, it is my opinion that engineering
> >considerations do not weigh in favour of changing the string.
> >
> >I particularly do not want to see a world where the norm is:
> >
> >   example.com TXT "v=spf1 a mx ptr"
> >   example.com TXT "v=spf2 a mx ptr"
> >
> >Both records would contain the same content, yet senders
> >might feel the need to publish both "just to be on the safe side".
>
> Both records do _not_ contain the same information.  The first
> record has a target of MAIL_FROM; the second has a target
> of PRA.  The fact that the strings "a mx ptr" happen to be
> the same in both records does not change that fundamental
> fact.  [...]

Surely this is a distinction without a difference.  If you ask me,
"What checks do you want me to make on email which arrives with
MAIL FROM: george@xxxxxxx?", and then you ask me "What checks do
you want me to make on email which arrives with a PRA of
george@xxxxxxx?", would you be surprised if I answered
"... a mx -all" in both cases?  Perhaps there are cases in which
people want the checks to be different, but this will be the
exception (and I think a rare one) rather than the rule.  I
strongly agree with Meng that the problems associated with
changing the version string outweigh the possible theoretical
advantage.

-- George Mitchell