Douglas Otis wrote: > On Nov 6, 2006, at 3:12 PM, Julian Mehnle wrote: > > Douglas Otis wrote: > > > In Dusseldorf, Julian and Ming received *constructive* > > > recommendations to allow record scoping, but this was ignored and > > > became the basis for Julian's ignored complaint made to the IESG. > > > > Sorry to barge in on this particular topic (which is mostly > > unrelated to the issues raised by K.J. Petrie or the alleged DoS > > issue), but this ain't correct. The v=spf1/pra re-use issue was > > indeed discussed at the MAAWG meeting in Düsseldorf. I'm not sure > > what you mean when you say that "allowing record scoping" was > > proposed, but what was actually proposed were two different things > > (depending on whom I talked to): > > > > A. Accept the v=spf1/pra re-use and start promoting v=spf1 as > > having a different meaning than what had been defined back in 2003. > > > > B. Abandon v=spf1 entirely in favor of spf2.0 (or some completely > > different) scheme in order to avoid the misinterpretation of > > v=spf1 records for PRA purposes. > > It seems v=spf1/pra will be more disruptive than spf2.0/mailfrom? If you mean that the interpretation of v=spf1 for the PRA scope would be more disruptive than recommending that everyone publish spf2.0 (essen- tially what B says) instead of v=spf1, then, yes, I'd agree. > What is your view about forcing use of different scripts? I don't understand what you're suggesting here. What do you mean by "forcing use of different scripts"?
Attachment:
pgpDAnQkpaJ2U.pgp
Description: PGP signature