...... Original Message .......
On Fri, 13 May 2005 17:33:24 -0500 wayne <wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net> wrote:
As expected, the last 20% of the SPF spec is taking the other 80% of
the time. We still haven't had any rulings from the council on any of
the issues yet, but we have had a lot of suggested changes, so I think
it is time to put out a new release.
So far, I know of the following requests for council rulings have been
submitted:
(ScottK) For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message
should be rejected?
I'm partial to unknown=none, but I think this will do. I can live with
this.
(FrankE) For SPF council review: MUST accept source routes
(ScottK) For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED
I still think adding something like "... for production use ..." would be
better, but it's a political concern, not technical. If everyone is happy
with this, then fine with me. I'm certainly not in the best position to
judge the politics.
(ScottK) For SPF council review: Definition of PASS, Policy for
shared MTAs
Yes. This is very good. I'm not exactly sure because I'm still working
off the phone, but it wasn't entirely clear to me if you mean to say SMTP
AUTH is one way to do it or if it's required. Please double check the
wording. I think it should be a way, not the way.
Other than Frank's request, I think I have addressed all of the rest,
at least indirectly. I don't consider these close, but if people
think the changes I've made are good enough, please let me know.
Thanks for all the time and attention on my concerns.
Scott K