On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 02:50:02PM +0200, Rob Kaper wrote:
| On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:22:08AM -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
| > - 2.3.3: %t should use 4-digit timezones, there's a few TZs which use
| > sub-hour granularity. really.
|
| I'm not sure why the description in DNS needs those subsitutions anyway?
| Isn't it up to the SMTP+SPF software to produce meaningful messages
| unassisted?
|
| I can see how it would help customer support for the sender domain helpdesk,
| but I'm not sure this complexity is necessary?
The timestamp is a good idea because it helps the sender domain track
down the circumstances of the rejection, and it can use every clue it
can get.
I agree the explanation string places a burden on client-side
implementations, and may be tricky to write, but that is a burden on a
very small number of people, and I expect many more domains will benefit
from it. The easier we can make it for domains to adopt, the better.
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡