Subject: Re: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:13:45 +0100

On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 11:33:56AM -0700,
 william(at)elan.net <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 1020 lines which said:

>       5.3 Interpreting the Results of SPF
>       Verification...............6

I do not se why we should introduce a given verification (SPF) in the
draft. SUBMITTER stands by itself. Of course, it is developed mostly
for SPF but it may be used by other protocols.

My advice: drop everything related to SPF.