Breaking with tradition:
If the <target-name> has no MX records, SPF clients MUST NOT pretend
the target is its single MX, and MUST NOT default to an A lookup on
the <target-name> directly. If such behaviour was intended, the
<target-name> would have specified an "a" declaration instead.
Which do you think would be better, guys?
Honestly, this pulls surprising weight with me:
I administer a network of machines, and I hate having to have MX records
for each, and now SPF records for each -- my mail is handled by a few
machines in the domain, so the extra records bother me.
I'd love to see that grandfathering finally phased out.
Ari
-------
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-02.9.3.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)½§Åv¼ð¦ç?2b¥yÈbox(_dot_)com
-------
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-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)½§Åv¼ð¦¾Øß´ë ù1Ií-»Fqx(_dot_)com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part