On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:38, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Having said that, our job for now is to figure out whether to include
this requirement or not for SSP, and your mail isn't entirely clear as
to whether you think SSP needs to support that requirement.
I'm ambivalent. I think it [that a domain claims to send no mail] is a fact
that would significantly aid receivers in evaluating received mail. I don't
know that it needs to be defined here.
I think there is some harm in every e-mail identity related protocol
re-inventing how to express 'sends no mail'. I think it would be better to
do it once. Given that there is one method that is standardized at least at
the experimental level, in theory I think it's better not to try and reinvent
the wheel here. In practice, I understand that would open a rather large can
of worms.
Just to be clear, I was suggesting using a TXT record with the sting
literal 'v=spf1 -all' in it and not suggesting trying to drag the entire
protocol along.
So, I guess I was unclear because I'm not certain what is best. I think it
depends of whether we are more concerned about theory or practice. I tend to
be practical, but I could go either way in this case.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html