Jim Fenton wrote:
It's also probably a good idea to require a flag in SSP that indicates
whether the policy published there is intended to apply to subdomains.
This would be used when the subdomains are under separate administrative
control, and there is a desire to avoid having a parent's SSP "bleed
through" to subdomains.
That's a horrible can of worms, or rather that was my impression after
SPF went through some include_subdomains=yes and "zone cut" iterations.
With a short op=nosub episode for a variant of the tree walk in CSV -
your proposal sounds like this now long dead op=nosub.
Can we get away with "don't" (i.e. not applicable to subdomains) here ?
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html