-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
*ahem*
I think the discussion of new or to-be-deprecated features of a future
SPFv3 is going in a slightly wrong direction. (Besides, the "Another test
case for the test suite" thread has lost its focus a while ago.)
While being able to say "v=spfX 192.168.0.1-23" or "v=spfX host.example.
com" is nice and all, no domain owner is going to upgrade to SPFv3 for
that.
What we _really_ should be discussing are fundamentally new features that
domain owners are actually going to want to use for their sender policies,
such as DKIM, PGP, and S/MIME integration, plus other useful stuff that
none of us have thought of before. Be creative! Think outside the box!
And while we're at it, going from my and Wayne's comments about the (ab)use
of "v=spf1" and "v=spf3" for SPFv3 exploration purposes, I propose that we
use a tag of "v=spf3dev" instead. Or, more funnily, "v=spf666".
Thanks for your attention. :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFqsUMwL7PKlBZWjsRAinxAJ4vmirXqrWCvbMyKlUnfP9ZahTahgCg5ov5
kAJHESfnD1jRDnDg4o/jUoE=
=2kXX
-----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