[Top] [All Lists]

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

2005-05-25 05:42:57

In <200505250708(_dot_)40894(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly 
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:

On Wed May 25 2005 01:21, wayne wrote:

In <200505221721(_dot_)29489(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly 
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:

undermined by language such as "It is RECOMMENDED that domains publish
SPF records".

No where in the I-D does it say that "It is RECOMMENDED that domains publish
SPF records".

That text in fact appears at the start of the second paragraph of draft
section 2.3.

You left off the rest of the sentence, and therefore change its mean.

The complete sentence is:

   It is RECOMMENDED that domains publish SPF records that end in
   "-all", or redirect to other records that do, so that a definitive
   determination of authorization can be made.

Now, if your point is that this sentence should be reworded to make it
clearer that this recommendation is about the SPF record domain owners
choose to publish, rather than a recommendation that domain owners
publish SPF records, I could agree with that.

I think there are plenty of other references in the SPF I-D that make
it clear that publishing SPF records, starting in the abstract.