Hallam-Baker, Phillip [pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com] wrote:
Unknown mechanism = error is not the best approach if you want
extensibility.
The big 6 definitely want extensibility. If SPF as currently written
does not give it to them, they will either rewrite SPF or they will
chose something else.
Remember that if SPF goes into any form of standards process everything
is on the table for negotiation. That is one reason to avoid starting a
standards process, uncertainty is not a plus.
But the industry is going to demand extensibility, that is the way that
the system works.
Please define "extensibility" in the scope of SPF.
-------
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-02.9.5.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)���v¼����ߴ� �1I�-�Fqx(_dot_)com