On Friday 07 December 2007 10:09, Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com wrote:
Please note that when I suggested an SSP record that would indicate that
"We send no mail" it was pointed out forcefully that SPF could do that
for me. So the effect on some was to think that SSP must be supportive
of SPF/Sender ID, that is where that impression has been coming from.
Thanks,
I think that was me. I think it was also suggested (and the reason the WG
chose not to pursue it) that it was outside the scope of the WG charter.
I understand the SPF has a downside that some people find seriously
objectionable. None of those problems apply to a 'sends no mail' SPF record.
Personally, I think it's silly to standardize additional ways to say the same
thing. Others may view it differently.
If it was me that seemed forceful to you, sorry. SPF does give a domain owner
a way to say that domain sends no mail. I'm not sure how many ways we need
to say that.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html