spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Another test case for the test suite...

2007-01-14 15:53:02
In <MHEGIFHMACFNNIMMBACAGEFBOEAA(_dot_)sethg(_at_)goodmanassociates(_dot_)com> 
"Seth Goodman" <sethg(_at_)goodmanassociates(_dot_)com> writes:

Per-user policies aren't necessary,

I disagree.  Per-user policies are very important to certain classes
of email senders.

*_IFF_* that's possible at all it should somehow
combine %l and "exists" into what's required for
SES.  An "ses" mechanism replacing "exists" (?)

Since %l is only used with exists, combining them makes at least some
sense.  To make it worthwhile, the end result would have to be simpler
or easier to understand than the current exists mechanism.


(wayne(_at_)footbone) $ host -t txt pobox.com
pobox.com               TXT     "v=spf1 mx mx:fallback-relay.%{d} 
a:webmail.%{d} a:smtp.%{d} a:outgoing.smtp.%{d} a:discard-reports.%{d} 
a:discards.%{d} mx:stor" "e.discard.%{d} a:emerald.%{d} 
redirect=%{l1r+}._at_.%{o}._spf.%{d}"

I suspect that certain strong supporters of SPF would object to having
%{l} removed from everything except exists:.  I seem to recall seeing
it used in include: also.


-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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>