On Friday 07 December 2007 10:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Please note that when I suggested an SSP record that would indicate that > "We send no mail" it was pointed out forcefully that SPF could do that > for me. So the effect on some was to think that SSP must be supportive > of SPF/Sender ID, that is where that impression has been coming from. > Thanks, > I think that was me. I think it was also suggested (and the reason the WG chose not to pursue it) that it was outside the scope of the WG charter.
I understand the SPF has a downside that some people find seriously objectionable. None of those problems apply to a 'sends no mail' SPF record. Personally, I think it's silly to standardize additional ways to say the same thing. Others may view it differently. If it was me that seemed forceful to you, sorry. SPF does give a domain owner a way to say that domain sends no mail. I'm not sure how many ways we need to say that. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
