On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:11:57 +0100 Alex van den Bogaerdt
<alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 12:49:00AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
23:01 <Julian> Also we should start working on SPFv2.1/v3.
I'd like to suggest that we NOT do that. While v=spf1 is sub-optimal in
many ways, I donalt think that there are big enough problems that itals
worth breaking our installed base for.
I think Hector's post about SPF extensions was righton and the way to
pursue that is through modifiers added to the existing syntax. There
are a
lot of good ideas for this that have been discussed. We need to work on
them.
Uh... do we want to see different "v=spf1 " versions? One being able
to process a certain modifier, one not?
Certainly. That's the whole point of a modifier. It's to extend SPF
without changing the basic SPF result for non-implementers.
What we don't want is to make changes that cause us to ask the entire
installed base to upgrade.
Scott K
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com