Re: Sender ID in the news

Greg Connor wrote:

> Now I might be in the minority here, so I am willing to be
> overridden, but I'm guessing that more people will hesitate
> to add anything to SPF1, however harmless...
As long as it's compatible with published policies, where's
the problem ?  We have eh=, op=, p=, etc. discussions all the
time.

Things only start to get messy with positional modifiers, that
doesn't fly with existing v=spf1 implementations.  But it's of
course a good idea for spf2.0 resp. v=spf2.

                       Bye, Frank