Hector Santos wrote:
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?
That means that IMNSHO the Received-SPF header field is ugly,
I had no compelling arguments to defend it in a "last call".
My objections do not count?
If you have any objections against the Received-SPF header
field I've never seen them.
Or are you just indicating us who you kiss up too?
Please take your pills, those ranting attacks you have are
almost as bad as James' or Derek's. I'm pretty sure that
Bruce or Keith don't have any illusions that I'd support
anything they say.
a USER did think SPF passed a domain, when in fact, it
did not.
Yes, a PASS from unknown strangers is almost useless, some
users don't know this. And a "best guess" PASS for a /24
might be a bit vague. OTOH a best guess 'v=spf1 a mx ?all'
is fine for all practical purposes if you don't do stupid
things with NEUTRAL (like treat it different from NONE).
SPF is a _dangerous_ tool, the spec. is clear about this,
there's a MUST in the NEUTRAL chapter. But if somebody is
determined to screw up (like say check PRA against v=spf1),
then yes, it's possible to screw up.
Bye, Frank
-------
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