In <x4hdoc0zlx(_dot_)fsf(_at_)footbone(_dot_)midwestcs(_dot_)com> wayne
<wayne(_at_)midwestcs(_dot_)com> writes:
Note: I've studied as many as I've been able to get my hands on, I
know of none. Maybe you know more about existing SPF implemenations
than I do, but if so, that would take some work.
Ugh. I just realized that I *do* remember one SPF implementation that
doesn't (didn't?) support the the format of the sc= modifier that
Roger suggest, but not for the reason I mentioned above. Frank, if
you are so knowledgeable about SPF implementations you can make the
claims you make, please explain at least this one implementation.
*sigh*.
I *really* don't think we should be trying to invent a new
SPF-classic. I really think we should be making a better written RFC
for the old SPF-classic. This really requires people who know a lot
about the old SPF-classic.
Roger, having long participated in the SPF community and having
written an SPF implementation, understands that his ideas work with the
vast majority of existing SPF-classic implemenations.
-wayne