On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 08:27, Scott Kitterman wrote:
What about the 1,000,000+ policies that are already published. How many of
them are you willing to break?
On this, Scott, we are in complete agreement. Current records must not
be broken, and I make no claims otherwise. Nevertheless, ISPs are in
the business of providing services to their customers. One way they can
make their service more valuable to their customers who include their
SPF record is by reducing their SPF record (in space and time) as much
as possible. This should be a "suggested best practice" for an ISP. If
anything, to help the evaluation of SPF records avoid as many "failure
points" as possible (as include: crosses administrative boundaries) to
avoid a TempError and perhaps delays in mail delivery and to allow their
SPF record to be included where it needs to be without running into the
predefined limits. Will all ISPs work on making their SPF records
simpler? I doubt it, but if the complexity of an ISPs SPF record is
causing limits to be reached in a customer's record (whatever those
limits may be), there will be known ways that issue can be addressed.
With ISP cooperation to simplify their records, you'd be able to use
additional includes: in the kitterman.com SPF record, should you need to
increase your redundancy. Anyone who provides an email service should
make their records as simple as possible because their records are most
likely to be include:'ed by their customers.
Andy Bakun <spf(_at_)leave-it-to-grace(_dot_)com>