-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
I hereby request that the council decide on this issue.
I support to dismiss it, the 63 limit is mentioned in the
draft [...]
SRS details should not be mentioned in an SPF draft.
Apparently you missed my point. This is not about discussing SRS details
in the SPF spec. The point is not to give misleading recommendations. If
section 9.3.1.2 suggests the use of localpart crypto schemes, then it
should not be silent on a serious limitation of that approach with regard
to the %{l} macro. Not everyone understands SPF as well as we do, so the
issue won't be obvious to most readers from the note in section 8.1.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFClNLwwL7PKlBZWjsRAo4aAKCJamlopiGV71YTUt28w3LzYAg7FACg2Epn
rPxhUoMEoguXcZr6M0EOu9k=
=kVSJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----