Re: Re: purely dual-format approach

On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 09:34 +0100, jpinkerton wrote:

> I still think it would be a big mistake to mention pra by name in the spec.
> If pra dies, we'll have an un-necessary paragraph or two in the spec. We
> should make the modifier accept a list of 3-letter test identifiers and if
> one is mentioned that doesn't exist - it gets ignored.  If the whole
> modifier doesn't exist, the default is as per v=spf1 spec only.
Perhaps there are too many e-mails in this list and its affected my
ability to absorb information, but I wasn't aware anyone was speaking of
adjusting the V1 spec to include anything about PRA.  I certainly hope
such isn't the case, but the contents of this e-mail seem to indicate
that such is the case, and if that were so I'm with John and anyone else
in here with a clue, that it should not be mentioned.

> All the suggestions so far seem to need existing v=spf1 record publishers to
> *do* something.  I think this is totally wrong. The suggestion here means
> the existing v=spf1 records are unaffected, they don't have to add a
> modifier or second record to do anything about pra, unless they want to use
> pra.
EXACTLY.  I'm stumped to deduce just how something so simple has become
such a complex issue for so many....

> We now need Meng to persuade MS to write their software to comply with what
> can be proposed as a "MS-friendly" solution.  They can promote publication
> of v=spf1 with this modifier and the market will choose - we get the
> additional promotion of v=spf1 and they get .... well whatever they get :-)
Suffice to say this is a shoddy position and we shouldn't be having to
convince anyone of anything, however given that we are I strenuously
concur.  The above stated is precisely what we want.

I need a "clue" filter for this list, so I can identify individuals who
actually know what they are talking about, and then I can probably cut
my volume down by at least 50%!!!!  

Cheers,

James

-- 
James Couzens,
Programmer
                                                     ( ( (      
      ((__))         __\|/__        __|-|__        '. ___ .'    
       (00)           (o o)          (0~0)        '  (> <) '    
---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo---
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF

-------
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

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part