Phil White <spf(_at_)radagast(_dot_)itmagic(_dot_)ltd(_dot_)uk>:
3) The Sender rewriting scheme.
I'm sorry. I think this is horrible, and just plain ugly. It seems far too
complicated, and therefore prone to breaking. I cannot stress this one point
too strongly. Sorry.
He's got a good point. It is ugly.
1) Do precursors of MX still exist?
RFC883 designated the RR's of
MD - A compressed domain name which specifies a host which
has a mail agent for the domain which should be able
to deliver mail for the domain
MF - A compressed domain name which specifies a host which
has a mail agent for the domain which will accept
mail for forwarding to the domain
MR - A compressed domain name which specifies a mailbox
which is the proper rename of the specified mailbox
MB - A compressed domain name which specifies a host which
has the specified mailbox
MG - A compressed domain name which specifies a mailbox
which is a member of the mail group specified by the
domain name
All seem to work OK under BIND, so I assume this is an obsolete record that
still officially exists If it exists, can these RR's not be used for
something useful? If these RR's are obsolete, but still allowable by reolver
libraries, we have a plethora of useful options here. Even the definition for
MD seems appropriate. Though it was written to imly that this was the host
receiving mail (AFAIK), it could eaqually be taken that the MD host is
authorised to send mail for that domain (Mail Delivery?)
I like the idea of re-using MD.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
-------
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?¡