wayne wrote:
no one remembered who did or why.
IIRC Mark or Julian. But maybe I confuse it, Mark promised
to investigate who added the obscure RfC editor note to -00.
So far I got no reply about it from the RfC editor. It was
a Cc: explicitly marked as "FYI", so I also don't expect an
answer.
I've now also mentioned this issue on the general IETF list:
<http://mid.gmane.org/4272B65D(_dot_)10F0(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
Somebody did this, and I'd like to know who, why, and when.
Minor nit: I would be going for a Proposed Standard
Yes, sorry, proposed - draft - full. Not that there's any
lack of two independent implementations of something called
"SPF" doing strange things with TXT records beginning with a
string "v=spf1 ", but as long as they don't do it also with
the new SPF RRs they can't be counted... <eg>
things that I like that I know that other reasonable people
don't like.
Since you added "greylisting" to the SOFTFAIL explanation I've
removed SOFTFAIL from my SPF shit list. Another oddity about
%{d} implicitly vanished with the "zone cut". I still have to
read it but don't expect anything worse than the "20 seconds".
Bye, Frank