spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: TXT Records

2003-11-23 03:34:05
The simplest implementation would be a simple 'oracle'. If we were to call the extension 'XSPF' (for now) and have the grammar:

'XSPF' <SP> (SENDER-HOSTNAME|SENDER_IP) <SP> DOMAIN <SP> LOCALPART

I'm wondering if the SMTP command VRFY could be remodelled to do this rather than implement a new command. Currently VRFY and EXPN tend to be disabled in most SMTP servers, since they are typically used to harvest addresses, and so remain unused. However, the return code would have to be 252 or something other than 250 or 251.

and reponse of the form:

250 <SP> ('ALLOW'|'DENY') <SP> 'FOR' <SP> TTL-VALUE <SP> 'SECONDS' [<SP> 'FOR ALL']

The downsides:
4. ESMTP conversations use more bandwidth than DNS over UDP.

But are easier to parse than a DNS response.

--
Anthony C Howe                                 +33 6 11 89 73 78
http://www.snert.com/       ICQ: 7116561         AIM: Sir Wumpus

"...simplicity is a goal of good design,
                     it is never the starting point." - Dan Geer

-------
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?¡


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>