On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 03:55, Karl Prince wrote:
published to avoid confusion, and that the XML version has
precedent.
Thats disgusting. I think I read that information with too much good
faith. If thats true, again, thats a disgusting stipulation. Can you
confirm this via posting a reference? Either way I'm off in search of
it, its appalling, and I find it hard to believe our SPF guys at the
meeting would have capitulated to such a thing!
Cheers,
James
--
James Couzens,
Programmer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBD3BF855
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part