On 9/22/06, Frank Ellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
[never send mail]
> I think that this subject has been pretty well beaten to
> death
Yes, this could be a question about the purpose of "MUST" in
the requirements: If SSP proper doesn't saddle this dead
horse it's IMO still okay, not "lacking a required feature".
> If it was just "strict", I can see reasons why you might
> want to be more careful.
Yes, "never send mail" is a "nice to have" feature at least
for SID-unaware senders / receivers ("SID-unaware" includes
most of SPF, just for the records). Maybe say SHOULD or MAY.
Frank
Being an administrator, any time you give me more low hanging fruit
that I don't have to process, the more money you save me. Because this
translates into dollars/yen/rials whatever :) I am all for this
feature.
Regards,
Damon Sauer
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
