I have read some of the discussion og whether or not to use _spf as a
namsepace in DNS.
It seems that using a namespace would make it easier to get SPF
approved as an RFC, and in most ways it is a cleaner implementation
seen from a DNS point of view.
The arguments against using _spf (or something like that) seem to be
1) Some administrators will have a hard time understanding that _ is legal.
On the other hand we face the obstacle of telling the experienced
DNS administrators, possibly administrating thousands of domains,
that we do not want a namespace for SPF because some inexperienced
users don't know how to read a howto. Never mind that they might
have other uses for their TXT records.
2) Some automatic DNS hosting companies do not support _ in labels.
Well, if we are talking about systems for inexperienced users, they
will probably have problems with the SPF specifications as well. It
is probably more likely that these services will offer a "SPF only
from my IP" setup.
3) Not all DNS servers support _
Well, we could probbaly find someone not supporting TXT as well.
I still see more queries for x.x.x.x.in-addr._smtp_client.domain that
for domain TXT records. As more and more implementions become
available it will be harder to switch to a namespace.
I would suggest that the draft is changed to incorporate a namespace
as soon as possible.
--
Gustav Foseid, Initio IT-løsninger AS
http://www.initio.no/
-------
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
Wiki:
http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/HomePage
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)½§Åv¼ð¦ç?2b¥yÈbox(_dot_)com