In <4283D1F5(_dot_)5FB8(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
wayne wrote:
There are a couple of reasons why I didn't mention it.
Sure, there are a couple of reasons I don't mention it
unless it's yet-another-scope-thread. But a disussion
about add1_scopes= virtually minutes before the battle,
which is essentially a subset of op=,
Ok Frank.
I'm sorry I tried to summarize a dozen sentence conversation on the
#spf channel here on the list. I am really sorry that I mentioned a
name of a modifier instead of just say "a modifier". We have now both
typed a lot more words on the subject than Julian and I did on #spf.
or a discussion
about redefining PermError / None in a way incompatible
with say Sendmail's immplementation
To the best of my knowledge, Sendmail's SPF/SenderID implementation
has never come close to be compatible with any SPF-classic spec. They
apparently use the marid-protocol spec and interpret v=spf1 records
using that. Maybe things have changed, I haven't followed it that
closely. Anyway, due to their past incompatibilities and their lack
of participation on spf-discuss, I'm not greatly concerned about
making sure they aren't even more incompatible with SPF-classic.
-wayne