On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:38, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Having said that, our job for now is to figure out whether to include > this requirement or not for SSP, and your mail isn't entirely clear as > to whether you think SSP needs to support that requirement. I'm ambivalent. I think it [that a domain claims to send no mail] is a fact that would significantly aid receivers in evaluating received mail. I don't know that it needs to be defined here. I think there is some harm in every e-mail identity related protocol re-inventing how to express 'sends no mail'. I think it would be better to do it once. Given that there is one method that is standardized at least at the experimental level, in theory I think it's better not to try and reinvent the wheel here. In practice, I understand that would open a rather large can of worms. Just to be clear, I was suggesting using a TXT record with the sting literal 'v=spf1 -all' in it and not suggesting trying to drag the entire protocol along. So, I guess I was unclear because I'm not certain what is best. I think it depends of whether we are more concerned about theory or practice. I tend to be practical, but I could go either way in this case. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
