On 25 Feb 2004 at 11:18, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
20040225-11:17:04 mengwong(_at_)dumbo:~% dnstxt _ep.amazon.com
(<ep xmlns='http://ms.net/1'
testing='true'><out><m><r>207.171.160.0/19</r></m></out></ep>)
20040225-11:17:07 mengwong(_at_)dumbo:~% dnstxt amazon.com
v=spf1 ip4:207.171.160.0/19 ?all
I'm also not sure if the CID-XML in this valid, since its surrounded by
parentesis '(' and ')'. Not valid XML as far as I can tell (at least
XML::Parser complaints...).
though they really should be using ~ and not ?
If they want an entry that is semantically equivalent in CID and SPF,
they've got it right:
From the MS-specs about the 'testing' attribute:
"Documents in which such attribute is present with a true value SHOULD
be entirely ignored (one should act as if the document were absent)
unless one has cause by some other means (such as a private arrangement
with the document publisher) to do otherwise."
From the SPF-specs:
"Neutral (?): The SPF client MUST proceed as if a domain did not publish
SPF data."
Maybe they've just converted from CID to SPF with my cid2spf tool (heh!),
since the testing is translated into '?all'.
Meng, could you write up a comparison table between Caller-ID and SPF? I
have seen plenty of similarities and some crucial differences. You could
also weight the (dis)advantages of each difference.
--
Ernesto Baschny <ernst(_at_)baschny(_dot_)de>
http://www.baschny.de - PGP: http://www.baschny.de/pgp.txt
Sao Paulo/Brasil - Stuttgart/Germany
Ernst(_at_)IRCnet - ICQ# 2955403