Julian Mehnle wrote:
we should have better tools that warn against using "all" or "+all".
+1 with two exceptions: An "all" or "+all" as only mechanism is okay,
folks really hating SPF are free to try this. And "all" or "+all" in
presence of some FAILing mechanisms is also probably intentional, for
the "not.me" cases in "-include:not.me" FAIL-accelerators.
Frank
-------
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