I like the full version, citing the RFC I think is very important, if
for no other reason then the confusion with sender ID.
Terry Fielder
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Associate Director Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
Fax: (416) 441-9085
Julian Mehnle wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I designed a compliance logo for SPFv1 / RFC 4408 implementations:
http://www.openspf.org/RFC_4408/Compliance_Logo
Please send your comments!
The eventual license is supposed to be a restrictive one, i.e. the council
would probably have to confirm an implementation's compliance (either by
itself or through some delegate) and then grant a specific license to the
maker of the software to use the logo in association with the software.
Or we could try a liberal approach, although I'm not sure whether it could
work.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFs8A0wL7PKlBZWjsRAtVBAJ9GdZz+U0I8+s935tAfXF23D89PdQCg15mD
fT145ojCJhwU7Yr7wqAW38o=
=NLsQ
-----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
-------
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