On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 09:03:43AM -0500, Philip Gladstone wrote:
| Thinking about how SPF might be deployed, I think that it would be used
| to know the original domain of the sender (rather than the current domain).
|
| I'm still thinking along the lines of having a vanity domain DNS
| provider just forcibly insert a 'redirect' record that points to a
| server than can serve up more controllable SPF records. The bad news is
| that this server cannot get the original domain name of the sender -- it
| just gets its own name. This can be handled (to a degree) by having the
| redirect point at a unique name for each source domain (e.g.
| redirect=%d.targetdomain.com ) but this seems clumsy.
|
I think an "exists" lookup would do the trick. You can put anything
you want in an "exists" lookup, including the %{d}, so if you have more
controllable SPF records at some other site, you can make up those
responses.
Once SPF gets adopted, I expect vanity domain DNS providers to start
offering configurable TXT. I don't think it's wise to allow temporary
market conditions to influence protocol design.
|
| I wonder if this was the intention of the macro that just got removed?
|
No, it wasn't; this need was not foreseen.
-------
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?¡