On Monday 17 November 2003 6:56 am, Tim Gladding wrote:
OK, I'm not saying we should ignore the RFC completely. I'm suggesting
that we don't utilize the 'feature' that allows multiple PTR records :-)
Ignoring multiple PTR records would simplify implementations that only have
dumb API's such as the ubiquitous 'gethostbyaddr' available.
This will never be the case in an environment where SPF is being implemented,
since there *must* be a function available which brings back all matching
records of a given type. It's needed for other mechanisms mandated by the
spec after all.
Hence there is no good cause for ignoring the relevant RFCs here. I do think
it requires some explanation in the spec of the following:
a) The PTR lookup is made in the in-addr.arpa domain
b) That, contrary to popular misconception, there may be multiple PTR
mappings at in-addr.arpa.
The problem with 'Vulcan documentation' is that there are too few Vulcans
around to understand it. An RFC should not expect the reader to be more
learned than 'an average practitioner of the art'.
- Dan
-------
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-02.6.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?¡