Hector,
Hector Santos wrote:
I don't see why people would pay any more attention to an SSP
statement of such than they do to SPF statements of it. Just the
opposite, shoehorning unneeded cruft into SSP makes it less likely
that people will pay any attention to it, I'd think.
Steve, the SPF example was just an example to Stephen, that such a "No
(Outbound) Mail expected" concept does exist and is used in practice.
Thanks for that. I do understand the reasoning behind the requirement,
but I don't understand the logic of why it should be addressed by SSP
as opposed to say SPF or whatever.
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html