Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1
draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
02 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Ted Hardie |
2012-08-22
|
02 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2005-07-12
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2005-06-29
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2005-06-29
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2005-06-29
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2005-06-24
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza |
2005-06-24
|
02 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2005-06-23 |
2005-06-23
|
02 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Ted Hardie |
2005-06-23
|
02 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Follow-up comments: Version 2 of this document now asks IANA to register the "Received-SPF:" header field in the IANA Permanent Message Header Field Registry. |
2005-06-23
|
02 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley |
2005-06-20
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] |
2005-06-17
|
02 | Ted Hardie | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-06-23 by Ted Hardie |
2005-06-17
|
02 | Ted Hardie | [Note]: 'Please check updated ballot' added by Ted Hardie |
2005-06-07
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02.txt |
2005-05-26
|
02 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot discuss] Further discussion on the intended status and relationship to MARID working group needed. |
2005-05-26
|
02 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Ted Hardie |
2005-05-26
|
02 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot comment] I have followed Harald's lead = no objection |
2005-05-26
|
02 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter |
2005-05-23
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
2005-05-20
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01.txt |
2005-02-17
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2005-02-17
|
02 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot discuss] A quick check with some DNS experts raises concerns with the following: >> Finding a zone cut is complicated process as zones can … [Ballot discuss] A quick check with some DNS experts raises concerns with the following: >> Finding a zone cut is complicated process as zones can be >> multiple labels deep, and have wild cards. Further making things >> difficult is that different DNS servers return different (but valid) >> answers when queried Q-Trinity does not exist. >> The algorithm proposed is non existing as RFC2181 just formalizes the >> name "zone cut". >> On the flip size with DNSSEC it is trivial to find Zone cut, just >> use the signers name in the RRSIG :-) What he said. |
2005-02-17
|
02 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Thomas Narten by Thomas Narten |
2005-02-16
|
02 | (System) | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer by system |
2005-02-03
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2005-02-03
|
02 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen |
2005-02-03
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] This is SPF version 1. The title should reflect this fact. (SPF version 2 is documented in draft-lyon-senderid-core-00.) |
2005-02-03
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] In my opinion, a custom IESG note is appropriate. Some of the points raised by David Kessens should be captured there. … [Ballot comment] In my opinion, a custom IESG note is appropriate. Some of the points raised by David Kessens should be captured there. It would be nice if a lessons learned document was to come along. What was wrong with SPF version 1 that lead to the creation of SPF version 2? |
2005-02-03
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
2005-02-03
|
02 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
2005-02-03
|
02 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot comment] Reviewed by Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART His review: This specification is about ready for publication as an Experimental RFC. It's pretty clear, and provides … [Ballot comment] Reviewed by Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART His review: This specification is about ready for publication as an Experimental RFC. It's pretty clear, and provides good background for its design choices (I wish all specifications were this aware of "why"). The IANA Considerations section is very minimal. I have some concerns about security considerations, but the specification does explicitly call all of mine out, so they shouldn't be news to anyone. Good luck in addressing them, in the experiment! I do have one suggestion - the specification is pretty casual about this being "SPF Version 1" (the version number isn't mentioned until the top of page 10). Since this specification is being written specifically because there are a variety of SPFs, and I'm assuming we expect more SPFs (otherwise, why experimental?), so it seems like we should have "Version 1" in the title of the document. |
2005-02-03
|
02 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand |
2005-02-03
|
02 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin |
2005-02-03
|
02 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Comments: Upon approval of this document the IANA will assign a RR type number for the SPF RR type in the following registry: |
2005-02-03
|
02 | David Kessens | [Ballot comment] I believe that this solution abuses the DNS. The DNS was designed as a simple name to address mapping. The DNS is not … [Ballot comment] I believe that this solution abuses the DNS. The DNS was designed as a simple name to address mapping. The DNS is not a very good general purpose database and this solution uses it as such. I would have much preferred a solution that would be an extension to SMTP that simply checks back with one of the official MTA machines as listed in the 'mx' records for the domain whether the sending machine can be accepted, or just one simple DNS record with the name of the machine which is capable of doing the verification. The resulting protocol would be much simpler as all the configuration of the MTA doesn't need standarization as this information would not need to be published since it is not needed by any other than the 'mx' domain. From an operational perspective, the DNS solution also has issues since the DNS administrator is not necessarily the same as the mail administrator. However, the document states: "The goal of this document is to clearly document the protocol defined by earlier drafts specifications of SPF as used in existing implementations." As such, I believe that is better to have the mechanism documented. |
2005-02-02
|
02 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2005-01-31
|
02 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-01-27
|
02 | Ted Hardie | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-02-03 by Ted Hardie |
2005-01-27
|
02 | Ted Hardie | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation::External Party by Ted Hardie |
2005-01-27
|
02 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Hardie |
2005-01-27
|
02 | Ted Hardie | Ballot has been issued by Ted Hardie |
2005-01-27
|
02 | Ted Hardie | Created "Approve" ballot |
2005-01-27
|
02 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2005-01-27
|
02 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2005-01-27
|
02 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2005-01-07
|
02 | Ted Hardie | Area acronymn has been changed to app from gen |
2005-01-07
|
02 | Ted Hardie | [Note]: 'Sent to dea-dir for review' added by Ted Hardie |
2005-01-07
|
02 | Ted Hardie | Draft Added by Ted Hardie in state AD Evaluation |
2005-01-03
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt |