-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
If SPF-private isn't the solution maybe you need something like council
AT openspf.org for "official" + "private" mails.
The solution to _what_ problem?
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Only if the content is competitive or its release otherwise strategi-
cally counterproductive
There should be no "competition" about v=spf1, it's a standard, not a
"product", and as you said the only viable "strategy" is based on
openness.
The "spf2.0 vs. v=spf1" issue could be competitive, for example. We also
had a case once where a journalist wanted some answers for an article of
his, and we didn't want to spoil his research efforts so we decided to
handle his query on spf-private. That case _was_ competitive, just not
for _us_, but for him.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD54r0wL7PKlBZWjsRAjwNAJ9tONlkS+KECxKlQfeWRei/c6SVvgCgyoTF
9+qYyjyHn9EfOTIroOVYehE=
=YAur
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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