Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF

Greg Connor wrote:

if you really think it's of interest to most of spf-discuss
members, by all means carry on :)


It's absolutely essential to declare "SPF does not break UUCP",
and I want a resolution from the "leadership council" a.s.a.p.
Okay, I stop posting for 24 hours... ;-)

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
RE: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, (continued) RE: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Roger Moser Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Frank Ellermann RE: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Hallam-Baker, Phillip Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Frank Ellermann Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Alex van den Bogaerdt RE: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, administrator RE: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Guy RE: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Hallam-Baker, Phillip Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Frank Ellermann Re: Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Greg Connor Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Frank Ellermann <= RE: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Guy RE: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, administrator RE: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Hallam-Baker, Phillip Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Alex van den Bogaerdt