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

[wayne <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <33F089AA-019C-11D9-9A6B-000A95B3BA44@xxxxxx> Andrew Newton <andy@xxxxxx> writes:

> It is the opinion of the co-chairs at this time (before the end of
> last call) that the MARID working group has no consensus regarding the
> deployment of Sender ID.

Sadly, I agree with this assessment.   :-<



>                                         Since predicting deployment is
> a subjective matter and not strictly a technical concern, we would
> like to offer the working group a proposal for modifying Sender ID
> that would take the issue of deployment out of the hands of the IETF
> and place it in the hands of the ultimate decision-makers, the systems
> and network administrators of the Internet. 

Are you saying that, by adding the mailfrom scope, you think that the
marid-pra I-D can/should advance?   If so, I strongly disagree with
this position.




> 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.  

Several comments:

1) I really doubt that we will be able to gain any sort of consensus
   on the support of 2821.MAILFROM in the time remaining in the
   current last call.


2) As others have pointed out, SPF-classic required 2821.HELO checking
   in some cases and allowed 2821.HELO checking in all cases.
   Therefore, I think that at least a 2821.HELO scope needs to be
   added.

3) I think that it is critical to also add the %{e} scope macro
   variable, as mentioned several times on this list.  

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

I support work along this line.


-wayne