Mark Lentczner wrote:
We are only trying to gather evidence to see if it is worth
changing the syntax in a bigger way than adding another macro
letter.
So far there was no such example. Maybe one exception: If a
sender policy contains "+mx" _only_ for the HELO in bounces
(i.e. MAIL FROM:<>), then it could be better to have a general
rule for this check. Or in other words, a HELO domain.example
should result in a PASS if sent from any MX for domain.example,
even if the sender policy doesn't mention "+mx" explicitly.
That would be a minor update of a special case in classic SPF.
Better than new %{e} or scope tricks for _this_ purpose. IMHO
Hector's arguments were convincing, no v=spf2 at this moment,
unless MARID insists on new syntax in a RfC. Bye, Frank