Re: SPF support diff

[Matti Aarnio <mea@nic.funet.fi>]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:12:59PM +0300, Eugene Crosser wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 02:31, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:02:32PM +0300, Eugene Crosser wrote:
> > > Matti,
> > > 
> > > I hope that you will eventually find some time for Zmailer :)
> > 
> >   I am again building MTA systems at work, so I could schedule
> >   some time.
> 
> Great!  Then I'll send another (smallish) patch soon, it makes the
> message "Ask HELP for contact information" customizable (e.g. you could
> put "See http://mailpolicy.example.com/ or ask HELP for contact info"
> there).

Ok, that is usefull.

> >   I considered,  am ambivalent of usefullness, but did
> >   merge it.   There has been some discussion about SPFs
> >   merits and woes in IETF-SMTP list recently.
> 
> Thank you. I agree that SPF (or any LMAP protocol, for that matter)
> raises a number of problems.  OTOH, *some* variation of LMAP seems
> inevitable in forseeable future, and let it better be SPF than CallerID
> stuff from Microsoft or something...

Amen to that..

> I ran cvs update, and it seems that two pieces of my diff are missing in
> the tree, configure.in and config.h.in.  Did I miss them or did you miss
> them?

I ran them in twice, which gagged things, and I am not 100% sure
of what went in and what didn't.

Anyway,   config.h.in   should (these days) be generated from   
configure.in file's  AC_DEFINE()  macroes .. and  configure.in
does contain SPF stuff (that experienced a bit of my macro editing..)

> Eugene

-- 
/Matti Aarnio	<mea@nic.funet.fi>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe zmailer" in
the body of a message to majordomo@nic.funet.fi