On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 12:55 -0500, wayne wrote:
NO!
People who use SPF parsers that don't match the spec shouldn't use
them. (See http://www.midwestcs.com/spf/tests/ for an SPF test suite)
People who use broken parsers are going to have all sorts of problems,
and domain owners not publishing -all isn't going to save them from
all of the problems.
Domain owners should publish records that accurately reflect their
situation, and many situations call for -all. We *don't* want to give
people the advice that will require people to have to change their
records again at some vague time in the future.
I am using a "published" parser - spf-milter and have it up to date as
far as i can tell, as well as the perl modules it relies on. So please
explain to me how you consider this parser (which is published on spf.
pobox.com) to not be incompliance?
Michael Weiner
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Send us money! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
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