[ietf-dkim] Next-generation SPF cabal

[Scott Kitterman]

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.
> Thanks,
>
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.

Scott K