wayne wrote:
There was debate about it.
MID ? Any _comma_ changed with the results is important. It's
only luck that I tried grep 'overall' while writing a reply to
Terry / William.
It is mentioned in the release notes.
| Removed e-mail receiver policy definition on how to handle
| HELO checking. It was copied incorrectly from
| draft-mengwong-spf-01, changing its meaning.
Yes, obviously I didn't get the meaning of this part by only
reading the diff.
It is Receiver Policy anyway, not Sender Policy.
Curious senders might wish to kow what the expected effect of
a HELO FAIL is. Curious implementors might also wish to know
what to do in this case. And if curious admins like Terry
consider to test MAIL FROM before HELO they waste time if it
is a HELO FAIL.
No receiver policy in the spec. is fine, but please don't get
carried away. For a "who knows what the effect might be" text
100 KB are rather long, and there are already good PRG RfCs
not using DNS at all.
Bye, Frank
<http://mid.gmane.org/42904B3F(_dot_)70EC(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
<http://mid.gmane.org/42904317(_dot_)1574(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>