In <20031027180343(_dot_)GR17304(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> Meng Weng
Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 05:57:51PM +0000, Roy Badami wrote:
| > Hm, that's a really smart idea. What do other people think?
I like this idea.
I don't want to eliminate any of the existing methods even though this
provides their functionality because once you start talking about macros
some people will get turned off.
I would recommend defining the existing methods as aliases for the
lookup: method.
Defining the as aliases will serve several purposes:
1) It makes the SPF config TXT record shorter, something which I think
Is A Good Thing.
2) It gives people definitive ideas about how to make effective use
of the lookup: method. Several of these methods are not "obvious"
in either their existence, or in their usage. If they had been
"obvious", they would have been in draft00. Yes, these existing
methods could be spelled out in the example section of the RFC, but
a lot of people will look at real live zone files instead.
3) Having aliases standardizes these practices so when someone looks
at a zone file, they don't have to figure out what forms of the
lookup: method people are using. Things are just much plainer.
This is imporant when you are trying to debug someone elses zone
file, whether because you are helping someone out, trying to
diagnose your own problem sending to someone else, or because you
are the replacement to the person who used to have the job of
maintaining a companies zone file.
-wayne
-------
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?¡