Hi, just reading over the draft and have a few comments/observations:
- I think Errors-To is depreciated, it was only ever a sendmail kludge
and has never been formalized in any RFC, no other MTA's actually
support it AFAIK. Return-Path gets more milage.
- Further to above, people who "bounce" or "redirect" a message to
a third party may hit the same "gotcha" as "The .forward problem",
but in this case there is sometimes a "Resent-From" header.
- 2.1 "domain administrators MUST be prepared to upgrade" may
be more condusive to early adaption if it were a "SHOULD be prepared".
Is it reasonable to assume the implentations of a new DNS RR type would
maintain backwards compat?
- 2.2 This I should be able to cite chapter and verse, but I can't offhand
:-O, but could it be "considered harmful" to put underscores in A recs?
(the special subdomain _spf, its working in my tests but could it break
any resolvers or applications?)
- Love the Sunrise Date! Although in practical terms it may be too early.
Who knows though.
That's it after first read.
-mark
--
Mark Jeftovic <markjr(_at_)easydns(_dot_)com>
Co-founder, easyDNS Technologies Inc.
ph. +1-(416)-535-8672 ext 225
fx. +1-(416)-535-0237
-------
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?¡