In <20050524155001(_dot_)GE22668(_at_)verdi> John Leslie
wayne <wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net> wrote:
In <20050523134752(_dot_)GF89934(_at_)verdi> John Leslie
There is an explicit recommendation that domains publish "... -all":
I recommend changing that. Instead, I strongly urge that levels of
disclaiming be defined from the very outset of RFC publication:
Like many subjects related to SPF, this has been hotly debated more
than once. There is a whole section on forwarding, along with other
problems faced by people using SPF. I do not think your suggests are
accurate. In particular, if you use SES, forwarding does not break
I think we may need to explore this last claim: that forwarding does
not break "if you use SES".
Uh, I think you are right. It has been a while since I've read the
SES spec, but I think the use of the exists: mechanism in the SPF
record is optional. Please change that to "if you use SES with the
exists: mechanism in your SPF record".
Sorry for the confusion.