At 10:54 PM 10/13/2004 -0400, Meng Weng Wong
<mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> wrote:
OK, let me try to get some clarification on this.
1) what exactly is everyone's objection to allowing v=spf1
records to be interpreted in PRA scope? Let's set aside
for now the issue of scope disambiguation whether using a
macro or a /scope tag, and assume that PRA record content
would be the same as for mailfrom record content.
**************** REPLY SEPARATER ******************
I personally and professionally have no problem with whoever makes use of
v=spf1 records, as long as the receiver properly interprets the policy that
I have put forward. I don't particularly like the concept of PRA, and I
would not endorse it (because it is after DATA), but I have no problem if
someone wants to use it on my published SPF records.
J.A. Coutts