Wayne Schlitt wrote:
Well, I guess I should probably do things out of my planned order...
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'll add a few things.
Frank Ellermann writes:
23:02 <Julian> Motion: The SPF specification shall explicitly
and clearly recommend against checking SPFv1
(v=spf1) records against non-RFC2821
identities (HELO/EHLO and MAIL FROM). The RFC
2119 compliant wording "NOT RECOMMENDED" shall
be used.
[... (ayes) ...]
23:02 <csm-laptop> so ordered
- Fine. Silly jokes about Radu's ideas and how cool it is to
be ignorant about what's discussed in the SPF community noted.
I do not remember any jokes about Radu's ideas. I certainly do not
think it is "cool" to be ignorant of what has happened here.
I don't get where Frank is going here, either.
Regarding the choice of "NOT RECOMMENDED" over "SHALL NOT"/"MUST NOT", I'd like
to explain that I, personally, would have preferred
the latter, but I doubt a majority of the council would have agreed -- the
council had discussed this before. So "NOT RECOMMENDED"
was probably the best we could achieve.
Julian,
SPF Council Member.