Re: Re: the "implicit MX" rule

spf-discuss

2004-06-20 20:55:08

from [wayne]

In <40D5C88C(_dot_)22E5(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann 
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:

Without your no-MX-rule anybody not interested in SPF
and RfC 2476 could simply ignore it.  It was voluntary,


I dislike the no-MX-rule for the same reason.  I can't say I'm all-out
against it yet, I'll have to think about it some more.


-wayne

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
the "implicit MX" rule, Meng Weng Wong Re: the "implicit MX" rule, Frank Ellermann Re: Re: the "implicit MX" rule, Meng Weng Wong Re: the "implicit MX" rule, Frank Ellermann Re: Re: the "implicit MX" rule, Jeffrey Goldberg Re: the "implicit MX" rule, Frank Ellermann Re: Re: the "implicit MX" rule, wayne <= Re: the, Karl Prince Re: the "implicit MX" rule, Roger Moser Re: the "implicit MX" rule, Meng Weng Wong

Previous by Date:	Re: Re: making the policy decision: leveraging HTTPS, David Brodbeck
Next by Date:	Re: making the policy decision: leveraging HTTPS, wayne
Previous by Thread:	Re: the "implicit MX" rule, Frank Ellermann
Next by Thread:	Re: the, Karl Prince
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]