In
<2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EFA3(_at_)mou1wnexm02(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
The part we are missing is the extension model for the modifiers. At the
moment we have a registry type approach. I think that will probably be
sufficient. It worked on UUCP for years until they got to thousands of
hosts. I would not anticipate more than a handful of modifiers.
I disagree on this point.
The alternative would be [...]
Sorry, I wasn't very clear on what I disagreed with.
I suspect that there will be lots of little extentions thrown
around, many will be useful only between two cooperating businesses,
or for internal email, or whatever.
I agree with you that the current "registry type approach" is probably
sufficient. Just like Unix magic numbers, it is up to the creators to
make sure they don't have collisions.
-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-02.9.5.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_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡