-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of Frank
Ellermann
Sent: zaterdag 7 mei 2005 12:04
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] NOT RECOMMENDED (was: -01pre5)
Julian Mehnle wrote:
I think "Checking other identities against the SPF records
defined in this memo is NOT RECOMMENDED" sounds awkward.
Yes, but the idea is still important. We know that "somebody"
is desperately trying to remove this statememet behind the
scenes. How often did you confirm the NOT RECOMMENDED in the
Council?
Often. :) I must say, though, we had been dying to get the Executive
Director's report; and, and the last Council meeting, we (the other
Council members) kinda pushed Meng to divulge any behind-the-scenes info
he might have on whether there was any indication MicroSoft was willing to
cooperate (as Meng suggested such). He gave his honest assessment: that,
in his opinion, the one great stand-in-the-way for a draft 'merger' was
this NOT RECOMMENDED clause. I see nothing wrong with him having brought
it up in that context. And I think he would actually have been amiss in
withholding the info under these circumstances.
This is, of course, all in the public IRC logs.
So if you don't like my DEnglish - neither do I - here's the
same idea much shorter: s/SPF/v=spf1/
| Checking other identities against v=spf1 records is NOT
| RECOMMENDED because there are cases (e.g. Section 9.3) that
| are known to give incorrect results.
Sounds like a plan. :)
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx