[mail-vet-discuss] Preview of draft-09

[Scott Kitterman]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:52:46 -0800 "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk at sendmail.com> 
wrote:
>Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:14:49 -0800 "Murray S. Kucherawy" 
<msk at sendmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>   
>>> SM wrote:
>>>     
>>>> If this memo replaces the Received-SPF header, then it changes the 
>>>> requirements on an existing protocol.
>>>>       
>>> SPF is an experimental protocol.  Thus, I'm not sure this is a big 
>>> deal.  Anyone else want to weigh in?
>>>     
>>
>> It would be sensible, I think for now, to define SPF support here as an 
>> optional addition or adjunct to the protocol defined in RFC 4408.  Once 
a 
>> multi-method standardized header field exists (as defined here), it's 
use 
>> could be part of the transition from experimental to something else.
>>   
>SPF support is explicitly included in the list of methods supported by 
>the draft.  If other additional wording is needed to indicate that this 
>would replace the Received-SPF header in RFC4408, can someone propose 
>such? I'm not sure off the top of my head what language might be 
>appropriate.
>
>The current wording is meant to acknowledge that Received-SPF exists, 
>but is not sufficiently universal for general use.  Personally I think 
>that's sufficient.  I don't think we need to officially deprecate it; as 
>Scott indicates, one could use either or both in an SPF implementation.

I'm stuck doing mail on my Treo today, so I have looked at the exact 
wording, but your intent sounds right.  As long as this is not meant to 
replace what's in RFC 4408, I think no one from the SPF community would 
object.

I've put adding this header on my TODO for one of my Postfix policy servers 
so the end user (server admin) can decide.

Scott K