On 13.03.09 14:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote: > No. I assume you get that neutral because of ~all. And you get that ~all > because it is the default in case it's missing. -all is *very* different > from that.
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:17:29 +0100: > > There is no ~all in his spf record. On 13.03.09 18:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote: > I was assuming that a missing "all" might trigger this NEUTRAL (I haven't > seen a single example without it yet). That's wrong, it seems. Well, in such case you probably meant something different than you wrote. missing "all" is understood as ?all which means neutral. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. I intend to live forever - so far so good.
