You need to know that the statement is intended to be an accreditation. The
exists syntax tells you only that it is an authentication.
There is a major difference, I am not going to publish a record that says
'this is a forgery if SPEWS does not respond positively', even if SPEWS is
currently accrediting me positively.
-----Original Message-----
From: wayne [mailto:wayne(_at_)midwestcs(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 10:50 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Extensibility and Accreditation
In
<2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111334E(_at_)mou1wnexm02(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad
.vrsn.com> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
What is needed is a way for the sernder to state which accreditation
services they are accredited by. Then the filtering
software will eventually
converge on appropriate weights for that accreditation
through the usual
feedback mechanism.
I've mentioned this before, but...
What is the problem with using
"exists:%{ir}.query.bondedsender.org" or
"-exists:%{ir}.sbl.spamhaus.org"? Why does anything new need to be
added to SPF?
-wayne
-------
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?¡
-------
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?¡