-----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 David
MacQuigg
Sent: donderdag 12 mei 2005 1:27
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Clarification on "RFC Editor Note"
What I like about Wayne's new wording is that
keeps a firm NOT RECOMMENDED, yet allows other identities to
be used under the right conditions.
Without explicit approval of the record owner,
checking other identities against SPF version 1 records
is NOT RECOMMENDED
I clearly have to think some more on this new wording; but I partly feel
it may sound too legalese; as in: "you need a Sender-ID type of license to
use the records". Obviously, Wayne does not mean it that way. But I wonder
how a lawyer would interpret "explicit approval of the record owner". Anne
P. Mitchell, are you still here? :) I do not want to sound too nit-picky;
but the last thing I want is for people outside the SPF community to
construe "explicit permission" as some sort of requirement for a licence
ala Sender-ID. That would suck. :)
Now for the real nit-pick. :) Semantically, what logically follows the
strongly worded "without explicit approval" is a MUST, or MUST NOT. The
former part of the sentence, "without explicit approval", you could say,
is writing checks the latter, "NOT RECOMMENDED", can't cash. :)
"consulting", as a suggestion also, IMHO, better matches the "NOT
RECOMMENDED".
So, maybe something like:
Without consulting the record owner, checking other identities
against "v=spf1" records is NOT RECOMMENDED.
Regards,
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx