In <43C55759(_dot_)23B4(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
Sloppy. It never had the vetting and last calls like your
stuff, they were never interested in any details like subtle
HELO issues not limited to %{h}.
Indeed, the senderid drafts are *very* sloppy and the fact that the
authors have not responded to any comments about them shows that they
really don't care much about them.
If you'd think that your document already is the "mfrom"
specification, how comes that folks like Dick or the MAAWG
still have doubts about HELO ?
I suspect that Dick will be able to answer for himself, but that the
MAAWG folks won't. Therefore, I will venture to say that the MAAWG
folks really don't understand SPF and got a lot of stuff wrong. The
fact that they call the lentczner-spf draft the "original" SPF shows
just how clueless about SPF they are.
-wayne
-------
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