* Jonathan Steinert <hachi(_at_)kuiki(_dot_)net> [2003-10-20 12:15-0500]
Gerald Oskoboiny wrote:
How about using "rfcnnnn" instead of "_smtp_client", where nnnn
is the number of the SPF RFC? (when it's eventually assigned)
One problem with that would be that early adopters won't know the
RFC number in advance, but the early adopters could continue to use
_smtp_client and the RFC could recommend checking for _smtp_client
in addition to rfcnnnn. (maybe only until a certain date)
RFCs get superceeded, so if we kept the rule of rfcnnnn in place we
would end up using a new number for every version.
Future RFCs could continue to use the number of the original SPF RFC
in the magic subdomain token.
hmm, I was going to use the message/rfc822 media type as an example,
but after a bit of googling it seems that message/rfc2822 exists
as well. I wonder why they did that.
Ah, iana's registry only has message/rfc822, not 2822:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/message/
so maybe message/rfc2822 doesn't exist after all.
This leads to an increasing number of DNS requests to maintain
compatability across versions. This seems (to me) like a bad
idea given that we can avoid it simply by using a standard name
for all versions of SPF.
Agreed. _smtp_client or _spf sound good to me if the use of
underscores is blessed by the relevant IETF folks, and there
are no major compatibility issues with deployed DNS software.
--
Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald(_at_)impressive(_dot_)net>
http://impressive.net/people/gerald/
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡