In <200701141005(_dot_)53380(_dot_)julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> Julian Mehnle
<julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> writes:
Seth Goodman wrote:
I must have been unclear as to what I meant.
"v=spf1 ip4:192.168.0.1 ip4:192.168.0.3 ip4:192.168.0.5 -all"
"v=spf1 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.3 192.168.0.5 -all"
Not wanting to comment on the SPFv3 proposal as such, but... Don't do
that! Don't write proposed SPFv3 syntax using the "v=spf1" tag! This
runs the risk of confusing newbies endlessly!
I agree with Julian and would like to go further.
*DO NOT USE v=spf3 EITHER*
If you want to define experimental records, use something like
v=spf-SDG, v=spf-ng, v=experimental-spf or something. We don't want
to polute the namespace with records that might cause confusion!
-wayne
-------
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