jpinkerton wrote:
I'm sorry you don't like it, but it's a statement of fact -
that is the only way to stop PRA checks on spfv=1.
IMNSHO the only way to stop liars is the truth. The truth has
nothing to do with dummy "spf2.0" records, that's an obscure
workaround for cowards.
I have never seen a detailed study of what goes wrong and
when and why.
It was published here, in MARID, in SPF-HELP, in SpamCop, in
the SPF pledge, and elsewhere, if you prefer to ignore it then
that's your personal decision.
I would also have to publish why DK, CSV, SRS, SES, et al are
not working well in all situations.
That's a completely different situation, these concepts work
or don't work independent of v=spf1, like spf2.0/pra works or
doesn't work independent of v=spf1. But PRA tries to abuse
v=spf1 as an implicit spf2.0/pra.
The website is about SPF.
And a clear majority of the SPF community does not want v=spf1
abused as implicit spf2.0/pra. Among other things it breaks a
valid application of v=spf1 for SES. Nobody else intentionally
breaks other schemes, only "Sender ID" tries this "one ring to
find them, one ring to bind them" stunt.
Bye, Frank