Stafford Brunk

In hindsight, I should have bumped this change to v1.2.x instead of leaving it on v1.1.x. My apologies for that. I too feel that strong security defaults are preferential. However,...

I know...that's why I said I want to support the use case.

If we want to make this configurable, we could add something like `adapter_config` to `Griddler::Configuration` or just expose our own config object (seems a bit silly though). From there, we...

We wouldn't force anything. Adding the key to `Griddler::Configuration` would happen on the griddler side, but it would just be an arbitrary hash. The individual adapters would then just look...

This gem already depends on the functionality/configuration of griddler so I don't really see this option as being worse than what is already being done. To me it seems strange...

Depends. You can check the arity of `new` and conditionally pass things to the method. Griddler can also bump their version to reflect the API change and the adapters can...

:+1: griddler is also in favor of a version bump. I'll put together the PR for them hopefully today.

Sorry, I haven't had time to dig into this yet. It is on my todo list but you know how it is... @jalada You are welcome to submit a PR

@tshakah that fork essentially disables SPF checks. Allowing all incoming outside of direct failures will allow several types of spam through. To everyone watching this issue: does defaulting to `pass`,...

Ok, that makes more sense. I've got the configuration changes done locally. I'm checking backwards compatibility with `griddler` (so you won't have to run a git version) and also figuring...