Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflictwith referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02

["Alan DeKok" <aland at ox.org>]

"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com> wrote:
> Only the receiver of an email has any right to decide how their spam
> filter is going to work.

  Sure, but the intent of the sender, and/or owner of the SPF record
matters, too.  Common consent makes the net work.  Otherwise, people
could send HTTP GET requests to an MX, and claim it's their "valid"
interpretation of MX records.

  If a recipient doesn't want to use SPF records in the way the
publishers intended, that's their right.  But they shouldn't claim
that their interpretation is compliant.

  If the SPF authors believe that another proposal has an incompatible
interpretation of SPF records, then that belief should be relevant to
the discussion.  Otherwise, any large company can DoS the IETF by
publishing incompatible interpretations and/or implementations of
proposals they don't like.

  Alan DeKok.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf