Reply to 424C2565(_dot_)5030008(_at_)ohmi(_dot_)org
Sent: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:29:25 -0500
Radu wrote:
Anyway, I have some ideas that I think are backwards compatible with
SPF-01, but I don't think it's the right time to spend time on them
now. They are very important additions, but it'd be best to introduced
them in a planned manner.
Yes, for SPF2 (or SPF3 if we decide to drop 2 because of the links to
PRA)? Hasn't practically everyone agreed that we *need* to get a final
draft out the door. It was one one of the main reasons the Council was
formed after all. There are multiple solutions for the forwarding
problem even if one hates SRS. They work. Lets not delay this any more
then we have to.
I have watched this whole discussion move from changing the query limit,
to arguing to arguing for incompatible changes to SPF. If this was 12-18
months ago, it would be fine, but bearing in mind most of us want a
draft asap, the fact that we don't want existing sender policies to
break and that "include=not.me" does what "m=" sought to achieve, albeit
slightly less efficiently; can we please let the council decide if the
limit needs to be changed and what to and stop trying to changing the
spec and leave the rest for SPF2/3 where we can make such changes? The
spec has been stable for too long to mess with it now IMHO. Unless there
are critical flaws, could we please freeze it as it works now (apart
from spelling and grammer changes etc).
Zair
--
Paul Ficinski
zair(_at_)fairymouse(_dot_)com