Its an example of messed up editing.
Meng had suggested allowing the SPF entry writer to specify the schema for
the accreditation service. I thought that the fewer moving parts we present
to the IETF the better, in particular the schema is going to be something
that the accreditation service should issue and control not the party
claiming accreditation.
If people feel strongly that we should have a degree of freedom here then we
can discuss. But my feeling is that we can contain all the complexity of the
schema representation to communications between accreditation authorities
and filter writers.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of Meng
Weng Wong
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 11:12 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] accredit= submodifier
yeah, i think so
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 02:06:58AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
| Hi all, what's a "submodifier" in SPF ? I've seen this term in
| <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg.iar/1>. Is it simply
| accredit.schema= ?
| Bye, Frank
|
|
| -------
| 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
-------
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