On Monday 13 November 2006 15:36, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 03:00:18PM +0000, K.J. Petrie wrote:
It could be objected that this is just common sense, so why write it into
the standard?
Please see RFC4408, section 9.3 subsections 2 and 3.
(bottom of page 33, top of page 34)
Alex
Thanks, I should have looked at that again before I changed tack. What I want
could be achieved by replacing the final full stop in subsection 3 with ", or
users could be provided with facilities to manage the inbound SPF policies on
their own mailboxes."
If that then raises the question of wasted SPF checks, we could add "If a
user's policies mean mail will be treated the same irrespective of the SPF
result, the domain owner MAY choose to save overhead by not running
check_hosts for mail bound for that account." In this case, domain owner
means the ISP, rather than the recipient of the mail.
KJP.
-------
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
-------
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