[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01.txt

2005-05-24 21:35:50

In <20050524155001(_dot_)GE22668(_at_)verdi> John Leslie 
<john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net> writes:

wayne <wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net> wrote:
In <20050523134752(_dot_)GF89934(_at_)verdi> John Leslie 
<john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net> writes:

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
with -all.  

   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.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>