In <200505071409(_dot_)17469(_dot_)bulk(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> Julian Mehnle
<bulk(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> writes:
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
| Checking other identities against v=spf1 records is NOT RECOMMENDED.
Oops, okay, same idea. Any reason why want to get rid of the pointer to
9.3 ? Wayne has explicitly added it to prevent the next assault of the
Sender-ID faction (i.e. Meng).
Uhm, no, I didn't want to get rid of that part, I just took the text you
falsely quoted as the original wording...
* "Checking other identities against SPF records is NOT RECOMMENDED"
...and modified it. I erroneously added a closing full-stop at the end,
which apparently caused the impression that I wanted to drop the rest of
the sentence. I don't.
Wayne, is it ok to patch -01pre5 like this?
Checking other identities against
- SPF records is NOT RECOMMENDED because there are cases
+ v=spf1 records is NOT RECOMMENDED because there are cases
(e.g. <xref target="forwarding"/>) that are known to give
incorrect results.
Ok, this sentence now reads as:
Checking other identities against
the SPF version 1 records is NOT RECOMMENDED
because there are cases (e.g. <xref target="forwarding"/>.1.2)
that are known to give incorrect results.
Note that I've added a ".1.2" after the reference, and I've also
switched section 9 to used numbered lists instead of using symbols.
So, instead of just point people to the forwarding section and assume
that they read and understand it, I'm point to the exact case where
things fail and assume that people will read and understand it.
I used "SPF version 1 records" instead of "v=spf1 records" because I
think it is clearer.
So, is this clear enough?
-wayne