On Thursday, January 05, 2012 03:09:56 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Scott Kitterman Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 3:08 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: > > draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-09.txt > > > > Except you've got all the other non-pass SPF results already, so the > > list > > would be complete (it's not an open ended list). It seems far simpler > > to me to add the one missing one than dance around it. > > True, but that presumes the list will never be extended. > > You're more of an SPF expert than I am, so I'm happy to concede the point if > you agree with that presumption.
Assuming (and I think it's a safe assumption) that SPFbis sticks with interoperability with current deployments as a goal, it can't change. Fundamentally, if the results codes codes change now, it's not really SPF v1 anymore. I think it's a safe presumption for the next 5 - 10 years and probably much longer. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
