spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Re: No more xxxx=yes please

2005-08-20 16:50:44

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Scott Kitterman wrote:

That's substatially more complex than I was hoping for.

Perhaps we try an option for 2822 From equivalence at the domain level
first and see if that has sufficient marginal utility before delving into
this added functionality?

Its substantially less complex then spf itself. Since people who implement
it would probably be the ones who already went though implementing spf,
this means the complexity would be something that they will not turn away
from. I also don't think people/organizations would be updating their spf libraries and records often and think that if we do ask people to support something and add new functionality into spf, its better be good reasons and good syntax to support multiple situations without necessity of new
update.

Note: As you can probably guess from my posts on this and other lists,
I'm not in favor of simplicity over functionality. My position on this
(old) debate is probably close to how IETF typically does its protocol
work, but they are often enough criticized for the results as well.

--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>