[spf-discuss] Re: Softfail when spf-checking mails from this list, max_

> > > > > "Scott" == Scott Kitterman
> > > > > "Re: Softfail when spf-checking mails from this  list, max_dns_mx=5"
> > > > >  Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:33:44 -0400
    Scott> I have managed to end up being the defacto lipspf2
    Scott> maintainer for Ubuntu.  If I can get a patch this week I
    Scott> can probably get it into the next release.
    Scott>  I'm neither a C programmer nor a lipspf2 user, so I need a
    Scott>  patch I can
    Scott> test/package.

    Scott> Later I will work on pushing it upstream to Debian.

Surely you have considered this, but what is the rationale for pushing
to distributions SPF implementations that are not known, according to
<http://www.openspf.org/Implementations>, to fully comply with rfc
4408?

Will the package documentation point out that it does or does not
comply fully with the specification or has or has not passed the
current test suite?

BTW don't we want to read "comply" where "conform" is written in

        ... there are currently two library implementations that are
        known to _fully conform_ to the final SPFv1 specification (RFC
        4408)

at <http://www.openspf.org/Implementations>?

        jam

-------
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

pgpCNaLqDPOeu.pgp
Description: PGP signature