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 >
The ? indicates that you do send mail from gmail.com, but that others with whom you do not have a trust relationship do so too. Gr, Koen -- K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/ Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence. Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/ ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
