In <000001c38df4$6a2a7590$0100a8c0(_at_)laika> "Arlie Davis"
<arlie(_at_)sublinear(_dot_)org> writes:
Why not use the SRV record? SRV is a generic service record. SRV was
intended for exactly these kinds of scenarios -- describing a new
service of some kind, without the need for partying on TXT record, and
without the need for an entirely new DNS record.
Unless I'm missing something, SPF really isn't a service, at least not
in the same sense as SMTP, HTTP, NTP, NNTP, etc. There is no daemon
running on a server that has a public port that people can connect to.
As such, I don't think SRV records are appropriate.
-wayne
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡