On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 15:21, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
I think Position 3 needs to be mentioned:
3) Remove SPF2 record and specify the use of TXT going forward.
I agree.
Barring that this solution (#3) is adopted, I believe that the
specification should require full compliance from the start. There are
(relatively) very few Sender ID implementations now, and there will be
many in the future. Requiring compliance now means a hope for 99%
interoperation, where as making compliance optional means a fight that
we're putting in the future when we *do* desire compliance.
"MUST" means something very significant to developers and managers,
whereas making compliance optional means "Let's make it work in some
hacked way, even in our brand-new implementation, because we're under
time pressure to implement this feature that our customers want."
-Max
--
Maxwell Kanat-Alexander
2nd Level Tech Support Engineer, USA
Kerio Technologies, Inc.
2041 Mission College Blvd. Suite 100
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Phone: (408) 496-4500
Fax: (408) 496-6902
Web: http://www.kerio.com/support.html