-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
John A. Martin wrote:
maybe we see if prefix=gmane.spf would pass muster?
SPF is far to small for a SLH. Even the W3C has gmane.org.w3c - and
gmane.org.spf would be odd. In theory gmane.mail.spf would be better
than gmane.mail.spam.spf, but in practice "don't fix it if it ain't
broke" - while it's not directly anti-spam SPF has some roots in the
ASRG.
I agree with Frank. It's not as if anyone could blame _us_ for Gmane
listing us under "gmane.mail._spam_".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFTHf1wL7PKlBZWjsRAh6IAJoD04Jny+tRP/4vkqyj9zj7USra0QCbBqDG
IU3h005h4IUr1XJr+rkwGM4=
=L/DQ
-----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/?list_id=735