[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope


Andrew Newton wrote:

It is also the opinion of the co-chairs that many in the working group are willing to deploy MAIL FROM checking as specified in draft-mengwong-spf. Therefore, we ask for consideration of the following proposal:

The ABNF in -protocol 3.4.1 is (mostly from a post by Wayne)

   version     = "spf2." ver-minor "/" ver-scope *( "," ver-scope )
   ver-minor   = 1*DIGIT
   ver-scope   = "pra" / "mailfrom" / name
   name        = alpha *( alpha / digit / "-" / "_" / "." )

And the following stipulations:

1) "mailfrom" checking will be defined in a new draft
2) multiple records are allowed
3) a scope (e.g. "pra") can only appear in one record of one type for validity purposes

The question before the working group: assuming no technical errors with the above, is there anybody who vehemently objects with this proposal?


I like it but what happens if I want to do both mailfrom and pra, would I publish two records?

Does this also increase a chance for collisions perhaps needing a prefix?

If the scope of a Sender-ID record could be used to signify many things, does that mean that beside mailfrom and pra, other extensions are possible in the future? Would that require an IANA registry?

Yakov