"Frank Ellermann" <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote in message
Hector Santos wrote:
With an IETF "last call" I seriously doubt that they'd let us
get away with this first new trace header field since STD 10.
Which is exactly why it should throw aside with FULL force. It isn't part of
the spec.
It was on my short list for "drop it" if Bruce / Keith / Tony
would have started some serious objections.
What on earth is that suppose to mean? My objections do not count? Or are
you just indicating us who you kiss up too? Come on, please don't go there.
It's ugly very near to FUBAR.
Your right. The piggy backing on the "Received-SPF: pass" is completely
FUBAR, with the emphasis on the FU!
IMV, this is the exactly the sort of activity the "SPF COUNCIL" is suppose
to be the watch dogs for.
Look, I only brought it up because a USER did think SPF passed a domain,
when in fact, it did not. The domain did not designated the IP address as
permitted sender. It was a complete lie. I was defending SPF when the two
users where disputing its value. If I had know about this earlier, I would
of brought it up.
So did it accomplish its task? No. Absolutely not. It did the opposite -
a complete FUBAR! And I hope you don't need the BKT boys to help you see
that.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
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