In <1074949064(_dot_)15264(_dot_)700(_dot_)camel(_at_)k9> Mark Shewmaker
<mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com> writes:
Or perhaps they could create records with something like "v=spfnew",
given that no real spf spec will ever use the version "new" most
likely.
Yes, that would be my recomendation. Or, v=spf2-beta, or v=spfwayne,
or something. For testing purposes, you really only need to have a
few people who talk to each other, publish a few records and add test
code to a few MTAs.
2. (Ducking) The spf1 standard could state that mechanisms beginning
with "ignore_me_" are to be ignored, and not cause spf processing to
abort.
My suggestion in the past was to use x- similar to the X- email
headers. I'm really not sure if this is a good idea at all. SPF
records are not a good place for undefined behavior.
-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?¡