MUST is an obligation.
SHOULD is not an obligation, it is a strong recomendation.
Therefore it should not impede your SPF deployment, it leaves you free to
withold -all as you see
fit.
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of
Stephane
Bortzmeyer
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 3:27 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before
I submit...
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:59:57PM -0700,
Mark Lentczner <markl(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com> wrote
a message of 42 lines which said:
4) Kept the "Domains SHOULD publish ... -all" language. Whether or
not this is where SPF can or should go, it seems clear that this was
the original intent of SPF v1.
It is certainly not the current practice, the one that the future RFC
is supposed to document.
I will not deploy SPF if I have such an obligation.
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in
Atlanta features SPF and Sender ID.
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