The work-in-progress draft is at
http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.6.txt
A couple of comments:
1) From the draft, section 3.1
version = 'v=spf' 1*digit
What about beginning each record with 'spf=...' instead of 'v=spf...' and
allow more than 1 character for version, such as 'spf=1.0', to allow for
more refinement of the protocol
2) Can a means be developed of redirecting one domain to another (equivalent
to the current 'redirect=...' modifier) that does not use TXT records? My
reasoning for this is that I believe that there are a lot of domain owners
that cannot conform to the TXT requirement for one reason or another. For
example, I know many 'hobbyists' (people who run their own domains 'for
fun', such as myself) and tightly-run businesses that cannot run their own
DNS and are unwilling/unable to pay for a full-featured DNS provider that
supports TXT DNS records. I have done an informal survey of DNS providers,
and of the seven that are very cheap or free (including those provided by
registrars), only one allowed TXT records. That one was ZoneEdit.com and
they only allow a user five free DNS zones. My company has over 20 domains,
one of which is our main domain. The other 19 are for brand protection and
marketing purposes. I would like to be able to support SPF with these
domains, but I'm not about to pay to have the DNS hosted, when all these
domains do is point to our main domain (for all purposes--www, mx, spf,
etc).
I'd really like to hear comments, especially on #2. One of the sentiments
that I've seen on the list has been that 'simplicity leads to adoption'.
Well, prerequisites have a direct effect on simplicity.
Sincerely,
Marc
-------
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?¡