Peter Karsai wrote:
We will upgrade our library only when it goes RFC I think.
Makes sense. OTOH both you and Hector agree on "strict is
good", I'm sure you'll love the RfC, it is designed to be
stricter than the old drafts.
Of course there's a loophole to ignore syntax errors until
they bite (left-to-right) for old implementations in the
RfC, but at first glance it says "PermError crap policies".
BTW, from an IETF POV it _IS_ already an approved RfC, it
only waits for the RfC editor for some last formal checks,
all references okay, typos, IANA did what it should, etc.:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html#schlitt-spf-classic
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12662
I hope that the final RFC will be more compatible with
the original draft than the intermediate MARID draft was
You can bet. Wayne brainwashed us for months with this
attitude, and he got what he wished... ;-) Read it, IMHO
it's very good, okay, rather long...
we do not want to make the same mistake again.
...it has also a nice "Change Log" (appendix C, 3 pages).
Better read this part before it becomes a RfC, because
the RfC editor will remove the "Change Log". Bye, Frank
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com