"Matthew" == Matthew Elvey <matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com> writes:
>> For someone who is interested in publishing LMAP records, there
>> is little incentive to publish just one type of record: they
>> may as well publish all types of record that both have a
>> significant number of sites checking them and allow them to
>> describe their desired policy.
>>
Matthew> That's not true. Publishing a record that lists the IPs
Matthew> that may use a domain in HELO is much, much easier in
Matthew> most cases than publishing a record that lists the IPs
Matthew> that may use that domain in 2822.From.
I did include the rider "and allow them to describe their desired
policy". If this WG does something completely different from SPF,
then I can see it being complementary. I guess the question I was
asking myself is that if this WG produces something SPF-like (as many
people want to do) then perhaps that SPF-like thing should in fact be
SPF.
Matthew> You are one of the small minority of SPF adopters who's
Matthew> been able to publish a -all. (Anyone have stats?)
I think many people are just being cautious. I'm happy to publish
-all for my personal domain; if/when we publish SPF at work, I would
be more cautious, and would start with ?all, then transition via ~all
to -all.
-roy