In <20031028185426(_dot_)GP17304(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> Meng Weng
Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:
| As a related issue, I think that if multiple TXT records are found,
| only one should be used and that one should be the one with the
| highest SPF version that the client supports. This would let people
| support newer versions of the SPF standard while letting older clients
| function as well as they can. I don't see much good in concatenating
| TXT records.
The above paragraph assumes that there will only be one record matching
"v=spf1...". Here is what the latest spec says.
Actually, no, I read that message from you (and even quoted part of
it).
As I said, I don't see much good in concatinating TXT records. No one
can depend on them being returned in any order, athough the DNS server
that some domain owner tests may well return them in a consistent
order. Allowing multiple TXT records looks like an accident waiting
to happen.
What is gained by allowing the following?
_spf IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:127.1.2.3"
_spf IN TXT "v=spf1 mx default=deny"
On the other hand, I can see that the following *would* be useful:
_spf IN TXT "v=spf1 mx default=deny"
_spf IN TXT "v=spf1.1 mx default=newoption"
-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?¡