Re: IESG evaluation of SPF

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 02:19:52PM +0200, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
> > Part of the problem: The RFC editor seems to think SPF2.0 is
> > a successor to SPFv1.
> Where do you gather that from?  Has he said something to that effect?
Maybe I interpret it wrong.

<http://tinyurl.com/4z5qq>

" It would be nice if a lessons learned document was to come along.  What
  was wrong with SPF version 1 that lead to the creation of SPF version 2?
"

cheers,
Alex