On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:43:12PM +0000,
matthew-list(_at_)bytemark(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk wrote:
| On Thursday 18 December 2003 01:47, wayne wrote:
| > Currently, the SPF spec says that a conforming implementation must
| > support include recursion depths of at least 10. I think there needs
| > to be much tighter limits placed on this.
|
| Hi Wayne, I've noticed this too, but I think it's a symptom of SPF copying
| some design mistakes in DNS as a whole: namely the tendency by admins (and
| sometimes encouragement by software design) to points names at names, and not
| at IPs.
|
The includes and redirects would still be needed if we switched from
a/mx/ptr to ip4; they're aimed at solving a different problem.
Regarding a/mx/ptr, Dan Boresjo made an interesting observation.
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200312/0021.html
-------
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_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡