wayne writes:
In <002201c5b0c0$ab6b9110$6401a8c0(_at_)hdev1> "Hector Santos"
<spf-discuss(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com> writes:
And immediately the spf-bias WG chairs began to [...]
By "spf-bias", do you mean that the MARID WG chairs had a pro-SPF
bias, or an anti-SPF bias?
The rest of your post makes it sound like you think they had an
anti-SPF bias, but I actually think they were both pro-SPF and a
pro-PRA. (And they didn't find these two to be in deep conflict.)
Do most people here consider them to be in conflict *if* the PRA use
of v=spf1 records is eliminated?
Note the question isn't whether you think PRA is hard or useless or
resource expensive or even evil. The question is only whether you
think PRA without use of spf1 records conflicts with SPF.
--
Dick St.Peters, stpeters(_at_)NetHeaven(_dot_)com
-------
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