mazieres(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 01:55:50 -0500, wayne <wayne(_at_)midwestcs(_dot_)com>
wrote:
In <F10C6AA6-FDF0-11D8-B6CF-000A95B3BA44(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> Andrew Newton
<andy(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> writes:
Despite lack of agreement on the outcome, there is agreement on the
stated positions. In the words of Olafur:
1) Specify everyone to be compliant at all times.
2) Specify clearly full complaint state and tolerate non-compliant
state during phase-in.
...
So, if we are planning on supporting SenderID, it appears that we MUST
allow everyone to always be conformant at all times. This means that
we MUST NOT require implementations to query SPF RRs.
The standard can be written in such a way that senders MUST publish
SPF records and MAY publish TXT records, while receivers MUST check
SPF records and MAY check TXT records.
One way to doing is to specify that RR records are checked first, and
TXT records checked second.
Yakov