On Tue 30/Apr/2013 19:11:15 +0200 Doug Barton wrote:
> On 04/30/2013 09:28 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> While it's too late for SPF, we can learn this lesson.
>
> As has been repeatedly pointed out in the discussion on both dnsext
> and spfbis, it is NOT too late for SPF. The way forward is simple:
The results of 4408 indicate we erred. To persist is diabolical.
> 5. When the next version of the SPF protocol (v=spf{>1}) comes out
> make it SPF/99 only.
Why should a record of type SPF have the string "spf" in it? Are
there precedents?
