Stephen Farrell wrote: > please respond, by Monday, to this with +1/-1's
You were probably not talking about this Monday, but... > Issue#1: +1 - include use of XPTR as part of ssp-00 > Issue#1: -1 - exclude use of XPTR from ssp-00 ...I still like Phil's general solution (+1). > Issue#2: +1 - Define how to use a TXT RR for SSP policies > (with or without something else) > Issue#2: -1 - Don't use TXT at all, only use new RRs for SSP IFF #1 AND #3 end up with -1 I'd favour a new RR (-1) for #2. > Issue#3: +1 - Define an upward query based approach to finding > SSP statements > Issue#3: -1 - Define a wildcard based approach to finding SSP > statemetns Don't care, both ways are far from optimal. Folks run into the known limitations with TXT wildcards if they try to use this for SSP _and_ SPF _and_ whatever comes next. Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
