FYI,
checking a quote I stumbled over a typo (?) in chapter 9.5:
s/for purposes/for the purposes/
Subject: Re: Email service assumptions and making system-wide changes
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:15:48 +0100
Message-ID: <43CC0D04(_dot_)1FBE(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg/11196>
Dave Crocker wrote in <asrg.ietf.org>:
<http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg/11194>
Some of the above is predictably redundant with
<http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-4/anti-spam_efforts.html>.
Hard to predict, because I didn't know this article, only one
of its diagrams now saying ADMD instead of AU was a déja-vu.
| A common simplification for this model is to use it only
| between boundary MTAs, but this considerable constraint is
| not specified in SPF.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schlitt-spf-classic#section-9.5
discusses this constraint, and in section 9.3 you find many
considerations for the one less obvious case.
It's probably unnecessary to mention here that I consider the
1123 5.3.6(a) concept as broken by design, in stark contrast
to the same idea in 821 when source routes still existed. Bye
-------
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