Jim Fenton wrote:
The SSP extension to key records would never be sufficient;
stand-alone SSP records would need to be published as well.
I'd like to suggest that we concentrate on the "basic" SSP
concept for now and keep optimizations such as this for
discussion later.
+1 It's kind of obvious that for *some* receivers and *some*
mails it might help to offer an "SSP-accelerator" in SPF, as
proposed by Scott (in 2006 IIRC). No issue for this WG. ;-)
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html