[ietf-dkim] Next-generation SPF cabal
ietf-dkim at kitterman.com
Fri Dec 7 07:34:25 PST 2007
On Friday 07 December 2007 10:09, Bill.Oxley at cox.com wrote:
> Please note that when I suggested an SSP record that would indicate that
> "We send no mail" it was pointed out forcefully that SPF could do that
> for me. So the effect on some was to think that SSP must be supportive
> of SPF/Sender ID, that is where that impression has been coming from.
I think that was me. I think it was also suggested (and the reason the WG
chose not to pursue it) that it was outside the scope of the WG charter.
I understand the SPF has a downside that some people find seriously
objectionable. None of those problems apply to a 'sends no mail' SPF record.
Personally, I think it's silly to standardize additional ways to say the same
thing. Others may view it differently.
If it was me that seemed forceful to you, sorry. SPF does give a domain owner
a way to say that domain sends no mail. I'm not sure how many ways we need
to say that.
More information about the ietf-dkim