Sender Policy Framework

=== The reference implementation

The Perl module [[http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-SPF-Query/|Mail::SPF::Query]] is the current reference implementation, even though it has some deficiencies, some of which will be addressed.

Generally, non-specified features such as [[FAQ/Best guess record|''best guess'' processing]] or [[http://www.trusted-forwarder.org|''trusted forwarder'' accreditation checking]] may be included with the reference implementation as long as they are clearly marked as ''non-standard'' in the code and documentation and are disabled by default.  If at all possible, they should be included in a form that is clearly separate from the core implementation.

=== The test suite

Council member '''Wayne Schlitt''' is appointed to the creation and maintenance of the test suite, and may call in the community for help if necessary.

(Proposed on 2005-01-15 by Julian Mehnle and Wayne Schlitt, passed by majority vote.  [[Action:browse&diff=1&id=Council_Resolution%2F20&revision=5&diffrevision=3|First amendment]] proposed on 2005-11-20 by Greg Connor, passed by majority vote.)

<+> Vote log for 2005-11-20 amendment
<pre><gconnor_l>  modified motion: Yes, there should be a reference implementation.
             Right now it is M::S::Q, though there are some bugs, which should
             be addressed.  There may be another reference implementation in
             the future.  Extra stuff is allowed at the discretion of the
             author/maintainer, as long as it is turned off and performs per
             spec by default.  In that case the documentation should clearly
             say that the feature is non-standard and may not produce correct
             results"
<Julian>     01:07u: seconded.
<MarkK>      gconner: make that: "as long as it is turned off by default"
<gconnor_l>  Yes, that's what I meant
<Julian>     MarkK: That's implied.
<grumpy>     I disagree that M:S:Q can be a reference implemntation right now.
<grumpy>     it has been broken in many ways for a long time.
<gconnor_l>  "as long as it is turned off and >the code< performs per spec by
             default"
<gconnor_l>  grumpy- In that case we have nothing to try and agree on right
             now.
<MarkK>      yes, we might wrap up for the day
<grumpy>     gconnor_l: I think I can agree with that.
<Julian>     grumpy: Look, it's not as if we were going to send out an
             announcement on spf-announce that "M:S:Q is still our reference
             implementation" and that lots of people would suddenly start
             using M:S:Q as a coding reference now.
<gconnor_l>  I thought it was the de-facto reference code, but if that's not
             what other people already think, I'm probably off base
<MarkK>      I think it is still presented as such
<grumpy>     yes, it is still presented as such.
<MarkK>      but not actively. :)
<gconnor_l>  To the extent it is presented as such (in documents, etc) it
             should have disclaimers added.
<Julian>     The resolution we're going to make now is not about changing the
             outside (outside the project) view on whether M:S:Q is a (good)
             reference implementation. It is about clarifying what should
             happen with some of the features of M:S:Q, which without question
             _is_ the de-facto reference implementation.
<Julian>     We can't change the latter part through whatever declarations
             now. And this isn't the point of this agenda item anyway.
<Julian>     The point of this agenda item is to decide what should happen
             with M:S:Q now.
<freeside>   the non-core stuff like best_guess and whatnot are all turned off
             anyway ... why not leave them in, and optional?
<Julian>     So, can we vote on 0107u now, as I have seconded it?
<Julian>     freeside: You're absolutely right.
<freeside>   i mean, we want to encourage trusted_forwarder usage, and putting
             it in there, but turned off, helps encourage that.
<grumpy>     Ok, let's vote on 0107u...
<grumpy>     votes on 01:07u?
<MarkK>      I already suggested my change, to remove "/24" from best-guess
             (and to apply bug-fix patch). Other than that, I'm fione with its
             current incarnation.
<Julian>     01:07u: yes
<gconnor_l>  01:07u: yes
<grumpy>     0107u: no
<freeside>   0107u: yes
<Julian>     Thank you. Thanks to gconnor_l, in particular.
<Julian>     (for the motion)
<freeside>   and i suggest we aim to bugfix msq as quickly as possible so that
             grumpy can feel comfortable with it being a reference
             implementation.
<grumpy>     MarkK?
<MarkK>      0107u: yes
<grumpy>     ok, motion passes.</pre>
</+>