Thanks to those who took the time to reply.
Note: I am *definitely* not saying SPF is too complex, that is not the
point of my message. I did not intend to discuss adding or removing
complexity at all, and I think the current spec is just fine.
What I meant we *should* discuss is what the *standard* answer should be
for anyone who *does* complain that it is too complex, besides "you're
wrong". It's more of a communication issue than a discussion of the spec.
Possible answers include:
1. No, it's really not too complicated. No, trust us.
2. Meng Wong has offered to pay for contract resources in the case of major
anti-spam or MTA companies.
Is there any official statement of "if you choose not to implement all
mechanisms you may still use part of the SPF data being published?"
Related to this... did anyone (M. Wong or otherwise) get back to Allman and
address his concerns?
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>
-------
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-02.9.4.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?¡