On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:22 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <1707398.kN3rUcK64s@kitterma-e6430> you write:
> >Does this need to update RFC 7208 since there are SPF related MUST
> >requirements?
>
> I would think so, also 6376, 7489, 7601 since it updates DKIM, DMARC, and
>
In article <1707398.kN3rUcK64s@kitterma-e6430> you write:
>Does this need to update RFC 7208 since there are SPF related MUST
>requirements?
I would think so, also 6376, 7489, 7601 since it updates DKIM, DMARC, and A-R
specs.
R's,
John
___
NOTE WELL:
On Friday, February 09, 2018 05:02:00 PM John R. Levine wrote:
> > If I may once again change the topic for a moment ...
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-appsarea-eaiauth/
>
> I pushed out a new version that says something about SPF macros,
> attempting to say that if
In article <20180209202621.31355.qm...@f3-external.bushwire.net>,
Mark Delany wrote:
Oh I dunno. The precedent of RFC822 - the very standard we rely on - has
survived numerous upgraded and enhancements over a 36 year period and managed
to do just fine without a version.
If I may once again change the topic for a moment ...
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-appsarea-eaiauth/
I pushed out a new version that says something about SPF macros,
attempting to say that if you try to expand a UTF-8 local part, it doesn't
match anything. I
On 2/9/2018 12:26 PM, Mark Delany wrote:
On 08Feb18, Michael Thomas allegedly wrote:
I dunno, it's not like there isn't precedent for this. oh say, like ipv4
vs. ipv6?
Oh I dunno. The precedent of RFC822 - the very standard we rely on - has
survived numerous upgraded and enhancements over a
On 08Feb18, Michael Thomas allegedly wrote:
> I dunno, it's not like there isn't precedent for this. oh say, like ipv4
> vs. ipv6?
Oh I dunno. The precedent of RFC822 - the very standard we rely on - has
survived numerous upgraded and enhancements over a 36 year period and managed to
do just