Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR
2004-06-16 13:15:19
You know, if can give the receiver an SPF record to interpret, you can
interpret that same data yourself. Therefore, RPC-to-publisher is at
least as capable as SPF-like schemes.
And it's more powerful. For example, it's easy to tell receivers "no" if
the localpart's not an allowed sender. The IBM situation described in a
different thread seems easy to handle, too.
Arnt
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, (continued)
- Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jon Kyme
- Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jon Kyme
- Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Douglas Otis
- Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Eric A. Hall
- Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Douglas Otis
- Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR,
Arnt Gulbrandsen <=
- Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Alan DeKok
- Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Greg Connor
- Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jon Kyme
- Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Douglas Otis
RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jim Lyon
RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jim Lyon
|
|
|