On 01/Feb/12 12:15, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On 31/Jan/12 22:23, Barry Leiba wrote: >> I am re-posting this without the extra recipients; please reply to >> THIS message, and NOT to that other one. We can discuss later who, >> exactly, should get the truncheon treatment here....... > > It looks good to me[...]
At the risk of being proposed for a treatment, I retract my post and ask that a new section be added to marf-as, about loop avoidance and control of flow. The new section would cover FBL traffic details such as using VERP and replying 552, which are to be used by all of dkim-reporting, spf-reporting, and reporting-discovery. Read more on, e.g. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg01910.html _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
