RE: Fwd: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:24:36 -0800

Newsgroups	gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss
Message-ID	<F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C155C6@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Kitterman [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 7:07 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Fwd: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter
> 
> Think if it the other way around.  Think of it as an additional tool
> that's avaialable if you decide to receive DATA.  It's not meant to
> force anything.

Right.  Nobody's changing SPF itself.  In fact, the charter makes it perfectly clear that we're not to do that at all, except to remove unused stuff or to apply changes or errata that have already been widely deployed.

Any extensions are (by the very nature of something called an "extension") completely optional at both ends.  If you don't want to implement it, don't.

-MSK