On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 07:18:07PM -0600, Aredridel wrote:
|
| An argument against last-value: If it's the result of concatenation, the
| order of records is undefined. DNS zones don't have an implied order to
| the records at all (and some servers rotate them. Imagine the
| consequences if half of the mail to a domain bounced, according to DNS
| caching. Nightmares.)
|
OK. new text:
Note that the use of the TXT query-type for SPF may be obsoleted in
the future by a new DNS Resource Record Type. If that time comes,
domain administrators SHOULD be prepared to upgrade.
If multiple "v=spf1" responses are returned, the directives following
"v=spf1" are concatenated in the order they are received. DNS
ordering is not guaranteed. If directive evaluation order is
important, SPF publishers MUST list mechanisms in a single TXT
record. In any case, SPF publishers SHOULD keep to a single TXT
record; multiple responses are NOT RECOMMENDED.
If a modifier is defined more than once, this constitutes a syntax
error; an SPF client MUST abort processing and return "unknown". For
example, "scope=envelope scope=header-from" is an error.
TXT responses which do not start with "v=spf1" are ignored.
-------
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?¡