Mailing List Archive by Gossamer Threads http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/ en-us (c) Gossamer Threads Inc. All rights reserved. 12 Feb 2012 08:14:57 -0800 120 75 23 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/ http://www.gossamer-threads.com/images/lists/rss_logo.jpg Hi! You have asked to subscribe to spf-discuss. If this is what you want, just reply to this message or click on the link below, and you will be subsc 13 Jan 2012 23:01:33 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36274 Hi! You have asked to subscribe to spf-discuss. If this is what you want, just reply to this message or click on the link below, and you will be subsc 28 Nov 2011 15:35:58 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36273 We've removed list-spf-discuss@lists.gossamer-threads.com from spf-discuss. No further action is necessary. Thank you for being with us. Rejoin spf- 28 Nov 2011 15:35:41 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36272 > -----Original Message----- > From: Murray S. Kucherawy [mailto:msk@cloudmark.com] > Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 2:49 PM > To: spf-discuss@listbo 28 Nov 2011 14:52:13 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36271 This mailing list is now available. If you would like to participate in the work, including: - hammering out the charter for the proposed working gr 28 Nov 2011 14:48:47 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36270 On 14 November 2011 08:46, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: [spf2.0/author, apparently] > I believe (Scott or Julian can confirm or correct me) that this 14 Nov 2011 00:03:34 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36269 > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 11:36 PM > To 13 Nov 2011 23:46:08 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36268 On 14 November 2011 07:31, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > that document proposes an extension to SPF called "scope", but > doesn't contain any scope de 13 Nov 2011 23:35:56 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36267 If you have feedback about the charter, please submit it to me directly or to the apps-discuss@ietf.org mailing list. -MSK ----------------------- 13 Nov 2011 21:48:01 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36266 <URL:http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/82/slides/appsawg-0.pdf> As announced by Murray here. ------------------------------------------- Sender Policy F 13 Nov 2011 16:41:16 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36265 On 7 November 2011 19:39, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >>> There will be an IETF working group for 4408bis. >> Can you share the source of this info? 07 Nov 2011 11:46:53 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36264 > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 6:57 AM > To: 07 Nov 2011 10:39:47 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36263 On 11/07/2011 11:58 AM, Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > I vote for running mailman on the openspf.net domain. It can run on > Julian's Debian server, or on 07 Nov 2011 09:11:19 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36262 I vote for running mailman on the openspf.net domain. It can run on Julian's Debian server, or on the CentOS 5 VM I allocated for openspf. I have 07 Nov 2011 08:58:32 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36261 On Nov 6, 2011 at 15:45 +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote: =>On 5 November 2011 22:32, Julian Mehnle wrote: =>> I think the upcoming 4408bis effort may war 07 Nov 2011 06:24:33 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36260 Frank Ellermann wrote: > > the SPF website is back. > > Almost all 2011 modifications I'm aware of are lost, can that be fixed? > IOW, what happened 06 Nov 2011 10:24:30 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36259 On 6 November 2011 16:24, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Essentially all the feedback I've gotten on my > 4408bis draft has amounted to "needs to move out 06 Nov 2011 07:33:01 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36258 Frank Ellerman: <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> wrote: >On 6 November 2011 15:31, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> There will be an IETF workin 06 Nov 2011 07:24:59 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36257 On 6 November 2011 15:31, Scott Kitterman wrote: > There will be an IETF working group for 4408bis. Can you share the source of this info? > It wil 06 Nov 2011 06:56:36 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36256 On 5 November 2011 22:32, Julian Mehnle wrote: > I will keep trying to get access to the latest > website data from the old server. Hopefully that w 06 Nov 2011 06:45:17 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36255 Julian Mehnle <julian@mehnle.net> wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >Frank Ellermann wrote: > >> On 8 October 2011 21:37, Scot 06 Nov 2011 06:31:30 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36254 > the SPF website is back. Almost all 2011 modifications I'm aware of are lost, can that be fixed? IOW, what happened with the old SPF server and do 06 Nov 2011 06:20:06 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36253 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Frank Ellermann wrote: > On 8 October 2011 21:37, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > As far as I know all thos 05 Nov 2011 14:32:08 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36252 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 All, the SPF website is back. It is now hosted on a more reliable server. It is temporarily availab 05 Nov 2011 14:26:52 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36251 On Wed, 2 Nov 2011, Benny Pedersen wrote: > On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 07:31:29 +0000 (GMT), Christian Gregoire wrote: > >> Since a few days, I can't access 02 Nov 2011 14:07:43 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36250 On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 07:31:29 +0000 (GMT), Christian Gregoire wrote: > Since a few days, I can't access the www.openspf.org website any > longer ? Can' 02 Nov 2011 00:37:16 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36249 Hi, Since a few days, I can't access the www.openspf.org website any longer ? Can't open an HTTP connection to IP 76.79.58.174. Same thing for you ? 02 Nov 2011 00:31:29 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36248 On 10/25/2011 06:50 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Sigh, at least I tried it. It puts a burden on you > to allow only "sound" local parts working with 28 Oct 2011 10:11:13 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36247 On 10/26/2011 12:14 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On 25/Oct/11 21:21, Frank Ellermann wrote: >> On 25 October 2011 20:33, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> 26 Oct 2011 09:42:35 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36246 On 25/Oct/11 21:21, Frank Ellermann wrote: > On 25 October 2011 20:33, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> Because "RFC 4408 deliberately steered clear of 26 Oct 2011 09:14:01 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36245 On 25 October 2011 20:33, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Because "RFC 4408 deliberately steered clear of > trying to specify receiver policy", considerin 25 Oct 2011 12:21:47 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36244 On 25/Oct/11 15:08, Frank Ellermann wrote: > On 25 October 2011 14:39, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> That's a confirmed errata (see the previous >> par 25 Oct 2011 11:33:41 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36243 On 25 October 2011 14:39, Scott Kitterman wrote: > That's a confirmed errata (see the previous > paragraph on TempError). When the spec was written, 25 Oct 2011 06:08:38 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36242 > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Kitterman [mailto:scott@kitterman.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 5:39 AM > To: spf-discuss@listbox. 25 Oct 2011 05:43:21 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36241 On 10/25/2011 07:57 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On 24/Oct/11 22:37, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> >> My preference here would be to treat these as Perm 25 Oct 2011 05:39:14 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36240 On 24/Oct/11 22:37, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > My preference here would be to treat these as PermError since an empty > domain-spec is not useful to 25 Oct 2011 04:57:57 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36239 On 25 October 2011 11:32, alan wrote: >> Is there any chance to deprecate local part macros >> in 4408bis as known trouble-makers? > I would hope no 25 Oct 2011 03:50:06 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36238 > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Kitterman [mailto:scott@kitterman.com] > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 1:58 PM > To: spf-discuss@v2.listbo 25 Oct 2011 02:51:52 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36237 > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Kitterman [mailto:scott@kitterman.com] > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 1:58 PM > To: spf-discuss@v2.listbo 25 Oct 2011 02:51:23 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36236 > -----Original Message----- > From: Commerco WebMaster [mailto:WebMaster@Commerco.Net] > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 2:26 PM > To: spf-discuss@lis 25 Oct 2011 02:41:17 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36235 > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 10:05 PM > To: 25 Oct 2011 02:38:46 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36234 At 06:05 25/10/2011 Tuesday, Frank Ellermann wrote: >Is there any chance >to deprecate local part macros in 4408bis as known >trouble-makers? I woul 25 Oct 2011 02:32:41 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36233 On 24 October 2011 22:57, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I've also gone ahead and submitted an interim draft Absolutely perfect timing for a -00 :-) --- 24 Oct 2011 22:09:56 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36232 On 24 October 2011 23:25, Commerco WebMaster wrote: > It appears to (rightly) push the issue of any > DNS specific syntactically invalid elements > i 24 Oct 2011 22:05:09 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36231 Scott, I think the second is better. It appears to (rightly) push the issue of any DNS specific syntactically invalid elements introduced by a pub 24 Oct 2011 14:25:47 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36230 I've also gone ahead and submitted an interim draft with what I've got so far. This is by no means final, just a partial first draft. http://www.ie 24 Oct 2011 13:57:46 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36229 As I've mentioned previously, I'm working on updating the SPF RFC, RFC 4408, and hoping to get it out of Experimental and onto standards track. I've 24 Oct 2011 13:37:52 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36228 On 8 October 2011 21:37, Scott Kitterman wrote: > As far as I know all those lists are dead. Okay, I've updated the Forums page. IMO spf-announce c 09 Oct 2011 08:44:21 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36227 On Saturday, October 08, 2011 05:05:24 PM Frank Ellermann wrote: > Website issues: On the <http://www.openspf.org/Forums> page > I'd like to disable 08 Oct 2011 12:37:55 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36226 Website issues: On the <http://www.openspf.org/Forums> page I'd like to disable SRS-discuss, SRS-devel, SPF-deployment, SPF-private, and SPF-council 08 Oct 2011 08:05:24 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36225 On 5 October 2011 22:50, Stuart D. Gathman wrote: >    mailfrom: "foobar@hosed.example.com" >    result: permerror > zonedata: >  hosed.example.com: 05 Oct 2011 19:40:31 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36224 On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > how to code this in YAML. The important thing is that non-ascii bytes in the > SPF policy are a synt 05 Oct 2011 14:29:30 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36223 I just committed a test to the test suite for non-ascii-policy. Pyspf flunks this test, so I am running the expected result by the community in the h 05 Oct 2011 13:50:07 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36222 On 4 September 2011 03:46, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> If you have a shorter/clearer idea to explain the issue of >> unknown mechanisms in prose, s 15 Sep 2011 02:33:07 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36221 > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Kitterman [mailto:scott@kitterman.com] > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 6:28 AM > To: spf-discuss@listbox 09 Sep 2011 09:45:02 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36220 On Friday, September 09, 2011 07:03:34 AM Frank Ellermann wrote: > Hi, somehow RFC 4408 managed to have a normative reference > to RFC 3513 when that 09 Sep 2011 06:27:41 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36219 Hi, somehow RFC 4408 managed to have a normative reference to RFC 3513 when that was already obsoleted by RFC 4291. The latter was updated by RFCs 59 09 Sep 2011 04:03:34 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36218 > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 4:51 AM > 03 Sep 2011 18:46:26 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36217 On 3 September 2011 02:40, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: Hi, > Yes, it's in the ABNF, and the definition of "permerror" > basically covers it. Is ther 03 Sep 2011 04:51:00 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36216 > RFC4408 is fine as it is in a pure sense, but nowhere does it explicitly > answer the question "What do I do if there's a bogus mechanism in here bu 02 Sep 2011 20:14:47 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36215 > RFC4408 is fine as it is in a pure sense, but nowhere does it explicitly > answer the question "What do I do if there's a bogus mechanism in here bu 02 Sep 2011 20:14:46 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36214 > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 4:05 PM > To 02 Sep 2011 17:40:42 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36213 On 2 September 2011 20:12, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> If an unknown mechanism is encountered, the correct result is >> permerror. > Fair enough. 02 Sep 2011 16:05:01 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36212 On Fri, 2 Sep 2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> New mechanisms (unlike new modifiers) can change the SPF result. If we were to >> add a new mechan 02 Sep 2011 13:50:00 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36211 On Friday, September 02, 2011 02:12:10 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott Kitterman [mailto:scott@kitterman. 02 Sep 2011 12:28:42 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36210 On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott Kitterman [mailto:scott@ki 02 Sep 2011 11:32:12 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36209 > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Kitterman [mailto:scott@kitterman.com] > Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:06 AM > To: spf-discuss@listbo 02 Sep 2011 11:12:10 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36208 On Friday, September 02, 2011 01:43:55 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > After a brief re-read, I see that RFC4408 explains that unknown modifiers > are 02 Sep 2011 11:05:51 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36207 After a brief re-read, I see that RFC4408 explains that unknown modifiers are to be ignored, but doesn't say what to do if there's an unknown mechanis 02 Sep 2011 10:43:55 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36206 Hi, my OpenSPF wiki update feed claimed that the Community Stories changed. In fact they did that quite often in the last months, 1: spam links added, 29 Aug 2011 22:00:00 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36205 Sorry for the delay. On 18/Aug/11 19:31, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> From: Alex van den Bogaerdt >> >> TXT records with an _spf prefix is clearly 24 Aug 2011 03:52:14 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36204 On Fri, 19 Aug 2011, Julian Mehnle wrote: >> I think a lot of people would be happy if SPFbis said to use an "_spf" >> TXT record, and the various op 21 Aug 2011 19:11:03 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36203 Hi, something with the OpenSPF wiki "upload" feature does not more work: | Software error: | CGI open of tmpfile: Permission denied | For help, pleas 21 Aug 2011 19:10:39 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36202 > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Kitterman [mailto:scott@kitterman.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 6:49 AM > To: spf-discuss@listbox. 20 Aug 2011 23:20:20 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36201 On 20 August 2011 15:49, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Scott needs to find some time to beat it into a reasonably stable > state first. The folks on the 20 Aug 2011 21:06:06 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36200 On Friday, August 19, 2011 08:12:28 PM you wrote: > On 20 August 2011 00:32, Commerco WebMaster wrote: > > Is there any place to view an outline for t 20 Aug 2011 06:49:10 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36199 On 20 August 2011 00:32, Commerco WebMaster wrote: > Is there any place to view an outline for the minimum set of changes to > which you refer?  It w 19 Aug 2011 17:12:28 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36198 On 18 August 2011 20:37, Scott Kitterman wrote: > The _spf approach would make wild carding impossible (_spf.*.exmple.com), > but I'm not sure I real 19 Aug 2011 17:02:54 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36197 On 18 August 2011 04:18, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote: > I think a very important lesson learnt should be: no "SHOULD", no choosing > between TXT and 19 Aug 2011 16:31:06 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36196 At 19:37 18/08/2011 Thursday, Scott Kitterman wrote: >I'm against any gratuitous incompatibilities. I'm not aware of any actual >problems caused by 19 Aug 2011 15:33:41 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36195 Julian, On 8/19/2011 3:21 PM, Julian Mehnle wrote: > Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote: > >> [...] >> Dotzero wants to go standards track. This can happen 19 Aug 2011 15:32:15 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36194 Scott Kitterman wrote: > I'm against any gratuitous incompatibilities. I'm not aware of any > actual problems caused by the current TXT usage in SPF 19 Aug 2011 14:40:33 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36193 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > TXT records with an _spf prefix is clearly a better approach than TXT > 19 Aug 2011 14:35:27 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36192 Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote: > [...] > Dotzero wants to go standards track. This can happen anyway. The > options I see right now are: > > I: docume 19 Aug 2011 14:21:34 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36191 On Thursday, August 18, 2011 01:31:38 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alex van den Bogaerdt [mailto:alex@vanden 18 Aug 2011 11:37:20 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36189 > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex van den Bogaerdt [mailto:alex@vandenbogaerdt.nl] > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 7:19 PM > To: spf-discus 18 Aug 2011 10:31:38 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36188 >> > I think RR type 99 won't be very useful in v=spf3 because using the >> > TXT type with a name prefix (_spf) is clearly a better approach. >> > Al 17 Aug 2011 20:58:54 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36187 Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote: > > I think RR type 99 won't be very useful in v=spf3 because using the > > TXT type with a name prefix (_spf) is clearl 17 Aug 2011 20:09:57 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36186 On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Alex van den Bogaerdt <alex@vandenbogaerdt.nl> wrote: > > TXT records with an _spf prefix is clearly a better approa 17 Aug 2011 19:25:06 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36185 > Frank Ellermann wrote: > >> [...] it is clearly something that should be addressed in 4408bis: >> >> Apparently nobody intends to eliminate the ugly 17 Aug 2011 19:18:34 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36184 On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Julian Mehnle <julian@mehnle.net> wrote: > Frank Ellermann wrote: > >> [...] it is clearly something that should be a 17 Aug 2011 17:49:09 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36183 Frank Ellermann wrote: > [...] it is clearly something that should be addressed in 4408bis: > > Apparently nobody intends to eliminate the ugly TXT a 17 Aug 2011 16:00:47 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36182 On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> I like TXT for unstructured data, I don't think it 17 Aug 2011 12:09:35 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36181 On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > I like TXT for unstructured data, I don't think it's ugly. For uniformity > with other protocols (DK 17 Aug 2011 11:03:34 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36180 On 16 August 2011 11:00, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> 3 - explain that practical EDNS0 limits could affect TXT where type >>     99 still works, but t 17 Aug 2011 09:49:36 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36179 On 15.08.2011 22:00, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Possible ways to improve that situation in 4408bis: > > 1 - try the SHOULD type 99 approach again, a PS 16 Aug 2011 02:00:51 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36178 On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> wrote: > On 15 August 2011 21:06, Murray S. Kucherawy wrot 15 Aug 2011 13:13:14 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36177 On 15 August 2011 21:06, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Over on the exim-users mailing list, someone just complained that > libspf2 tries for RRTYPE 99 15 Aug 2011 13:00:07 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36176 Over on the exim-users mailing list, someone just complained that libspf2 tries for RRTYPE 99 (SPF) before 16 (TXT). That's what the standard says to 15 Aug 2011 12:06:14 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36175 Hi Frank! On 13.08.2011 20:44, Frank Ellermann wrote: > On 13 August 2011 20:07, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> I'd be even more conservative. > > G 14 Aug 2011 01:09:48 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spf/discuss/36174