Mark wrote:
Is there a situation where a domain owner would NOT want the MX's to be
authorized to send mail on behalf of his domain? What I'm getting at is a
'default' rule that would, in effect, eliminate the MX directive, such
that MX's would be assumed to be authorized to send on behalf
of the domain.
What difference does that make? All that does, is tell people they have no
need to publish their MX directive; but the MX query has to be made
regardless. Sure, the protocol, for instance, could assume mx, unless -mx
is
published. Same difference; it still means the default is to do a MX
query.
Yes, but the original 'objection' was that domain owners that have
significant mail senders and receivers, such as yahoo.com, would (under the
original SPF specification that only used reverse IP notation) have to
create a significant number of new DNS records to match up with their MX
addresses. I was just suggesting a way to get around that. In the current
specification, a directive of "mx" means that the MX records have to be
queried.
-------
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-02.9.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?¡