-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Julian Mehnle wrote:
* rename include: to something like if-pass. It is *really* badly
named right now and causes a lot of confusion.
Why not just name it "if:" (less confusing) and provide "include:" as
a deprecated (confusing but backwards compatible) alternative?
Because "if-fail:" would also be quite useful.
But you could always say "-if:".
Or do we really need a full-blown "if" control statement? (No way!)
For more evidence that "include:" is misnamed, I found this in my logs:
config.com text "v=spf1 include:216.28.158.0/24 include:67.15.56.0/24
include:67.15.57.0/24 include:www.2.sitegalore.com
include:66.219.135.0/24" " -all"
Seriously, I refuse to take people into account who don't read the fine
manual. It's really not that hard to understand. (Besides, I'm pretty
sure that the above record is a result of the openspf.org wizard.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFEFl0wL7PKlBZWjsRAr9WAJ4/XuPGhcZxYGZ8Njuq5LlzeSqpGQCg9m7V
n5B/n8posWzzhvhvEn2WoAU=
=5OA3
-----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