On Tue 30/Apr/2013 19:11:15 +0200 Doug Barton wrote:
On 04/30/2013 09:28 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
While it's too late for SPF, we can learn this lesson.
As has been repeatedly pointed out in the discussion on both dnsext
and spfbis, it is NOT too late for SPF. The way forward is simple:
The results of 4408 indicate we erred. To persist is diabolical.
5. When the next version of the SPF protocol (v=spf{>1}) comes out
make it SPF/99 only.
Why should a record of type SPF have the string "spf" in it? Are
there precedents?