-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > On Thu, 11 May 2006, Julian Mehnle wrote: > > Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > > > In my opinion, the example policy should be: > > > > > > "v=spf1 mx a:pluto.example.net ?include:gmail.com -all" > > > > > > Despite the prominent disclaimer about using the example as an > > > actual policy, using the more realistic, though just as simple, > > > policy is better. The drawback is then having to briefly describe > > > '?'. > > > > Can you (or someone else) suggest a _brief_ description of > > "?include:gmail. com" to replace the current description of > > "include:gmail.com"? > > everything authorized by gmail.com is possibly legitimate for > example.net, too > > everything authorized by gmail.com is not considered unauthorized for > example.net
_If_ we introduce the concept of "?" to the "Introduction" page, then I'd prefer the former. However, _do_ we want to introduce the "?" concept at this basic level? The example record is meant to be "demonstrative" more than "realistic" in order to convey the big picture of SPF, not so much the details. One could argue "include:" to be an unnecessary detail, too, though (and I wouldn't even be against removing the "include:" from the example). What do others think? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEY+kmwL7PKlBZWjsRAg7zAJ92tOjrdbLyl3mV9WB1JmAjYA9UrACfRjk4 90tNVR21u9ifADHIx5oKZzA= =j7lI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
