Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records



On Sep 3, 2004, at 6:19 PM, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:

I am not sure how #1 differs from #2? Are you suggesting that if weadopt position #1, someone not having SPF RR records would be ignored?


My interpretation of the thread is "might be ignored".

-andy

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Andrew Newton Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Yakov Shafranovich Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Andrew Newton <= Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Yakov Shafranovich Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Daniel Quinlan Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Max Kanat-Alexander Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, mazieres Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Wietse Venema Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, william(at)elan.net Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Yakov Shafranovich Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Daniel Senie Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Mark C. Langston RE: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, terry