[mail-vet-discuss] Auth-Results issues #1
Murray S. Kucherawy
msk at sendmail.com
Wed Apr 19 13:39:14 PDT 2006
I've finally got time again to take part in this discussion, so here we go,
top-to-bottom. Sorry for the mail flood this implies.
Tony Hansen wrote:
> There should be an indication somewhere that this header is on the
> standards track.
It's my understanding that a standards track proposal is only appropriate for
protocols whose implementation/interpretation will span administrative
boundaries. Since that's clearly not true for something that is added by a
receiver/verifier for consumption by a message recipient, the informational
track seemed more appropriate. LMTP was cited to me as an example.
> I've gone round and round in my mind with what to do with this paragraph
> in Section 1:
> At the time of publication of this draft, only [AUTH] is a published
> sender authentication standard. However, several more are in the
> Internet Draft stage. As various methods emerge, it is necessary to
> prepare their appearance and encourage convergence in the area of
> interfacing these filters to MUAs.
> It's good sales pitch, but I don't think it should really belong in the
> final version of the RFC. I suggest that it be marked as a "Note (to be
> removed on publication)". Also, change "prepare their" to "prepare for
More information about the mail-vet-discuss