spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Sender ID in the news

2004-10-25 12:26:33
In <20041025191407(_dot_)GC1135(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> Meng Weng 
Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:

On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 01:44:31PM -0500, wayne wrote:
| 
| Mind you, I am still of the opinion that the SPF records can be safely
| extended to be the union of all IP addresses associated with the
| 2821.MAILFROM and the PRA.  MarkL, on the other hand, was recently
| talking about how he feels this is a bad idea.

He was not talking about how he feels it is a bad idea.  He
gave an example of how it could be seen to be a bad idea.

If I say "hm, it's raining" and you infer that I don't like
rain, maybe you're reading too much into what I'm saying.

I dunno Meng.  Mark said "My objections to allowing v=spf1 records to
be interpreted in PRA scope is...".  That is a far cry from something
as neutral as "hm, it's raining".  Maybe I was wrong to interpret such
statements to mean he feels it is a bad idea, I'll let you decide.

See:
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200410/0520.html


-wayne