This message points to a project policy issue that I think ought to be
discussed and decided on by the council (you knew there had to be a reason
to have another meeting).
Should the SPF project give recognition to patches that the MTA author has
rejected (in this case it's not just this particular patch, but the idea of
patching Postfix internals period).
The recommended approach is to use a Postfix policy daemon - in fact an SPF
policy daemon is distributed as one of the examples with Postfix. Note
that they aren't picking on SPF. They added a milter interface to Postfix
2.3 to enable support for SenderID and DK/DKIM.
In cases where an MTA author has expressed an opinion about how to do SPF
with their software, if we are going to make reference to patches, we ought
to at the very least make it clear that this is NOT the recommended
approach.
Scott K
...... Forwarded Message .......
From: "Nigel Kukard" <nkukard(_at_)lbsd(_dot_)net>
To: spf-webmasters(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 03:34:59 -0500
Subj: [spf-webmasters] Addition to the spf site
Topic: The SPF website
Name: Nigel Kukard
Organization:
Hi there,
Would you guys be interested in including a link to a libspf2 >= 1.2.0
patch I wrote for the latest versions of Postfix? I get about 100
downloads each time a new version of Postfix is released, so I guess its
popular amongst those who know about it.
The current Postfix patches listed don't work with libspf2 >= 1.2.0.
--
Message was sent via the SPF website contact form
<http://new.openspf.org/Contact>
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-webmasters(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)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