Dave Crocker wrote: > There is not way to properly enforce or even discover the semantics > of this flag, in the general case of sub-domains. This option needs > to removed or be specified in a way that works.
I think it's the op=nosub idea for A.B.C.example, if A has no policy, then B's policy needs a way to say that the "general" policy is at C. This op=nosub was a variant of the CSV left-to-right algorithm for an old SPF draft that still had "zone cuts". Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
