spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: IESG evaluation of SPF

2005-04-07 04:38:35
Mark Kramer wrote:
I would like to add, though, that I might be persuaded to have the
sentence say:

   "Checking other identities against SPF records is undocumented."

Scott Kitterman wrote:
How about, "Outside the scope of the SPF design".

This is all splitting hairs.  They're essentially all the same as
"undefined", which IMO is unacceptable in a specification that deals with
"v=spf1".

Why are we seeking a compromise?  What's the point?  (Serious question!)
Do we just want to please the IETF or somebody else?  Or is there real
technical merit to weaken the current wording?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>