Jim Fenton wrote: > The SSP extension to key records would never be sufficient; > stand-alone SSP records would need to be published as well. > I'd like to suggest that we concentrate on the "basic" SSP > concept for now and keep optimizations such as this for > discussion later.
+1 It's kind of obvious that for *some* receivers and *some* mails it might help to offer an "SSP-accelerator" in SPF, as proposed by Scott (in 2006 IIRC). No issue for this WG. ;-) Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
