spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email"

2004-01-24 21:08:11
In <20040125035930(_dot_)GT7601(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> Meng Weng 
Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 10:49:04PM -0500, Philip Gladstone wrote:
|      include:%{ir}.spf-my.dnsbl
| 
| where the returned record is either 'v=spf1 +all' or 'v=spf1 -all'

yeah, but then the problem is spammers will start spamming from
4.3.2.1.spf-my.dnsbl, which is why maybe we should put in a requirement
that mail never be sent from a host with an underscore in its name
... ick.

Isn't sending email with a domain name with an underscore invalid
already?

Also, such records would have neither an A nor an MX record, and so
would fail sanity checks that many MTAs already make.


Besides, that is why I didn't suggest +all.  Using ?all would be the
same as not having an SPF record anyway.


-wayne

-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡