matthew-list(_at_)bytemark(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 30 December 2003 16:06, R. Scott Perry wrote:
If multiple explanation TXT records are returned, they are
concatenated in the order they were received. Use of multiple TXT
records is discouraged as DNS does not guarantee order.
I think if multiple TXT records are returned, all but the first should be
ignored.
The problem is that SPF is co-existing with other DNS records. If you
already have a TXT record for your domain for some reason (quite a few
domains do), then multiple TXT records are necessary.
So how about we ignore all but the first TXT record which starts with the
magic "v=spf1 ... " ? I just wanted to take out the need to concatenate
arbitrary numbers of TXT records. If a domain wants to have really
complicated rules, it should indicate them by asking clients to do an A
lookup for the in-arpa IP representation using macros, and implement the
complicated logic or detailed database using resources on its own hardware.
Otherwise a domain owner can specify about 18 IPv4 ranges or 8-9 IPv6 ranges
and still fit within a 512 byte packet.
Aren't the "explanation TXT records" the macro-expanded strings used for
the explanation text when a server denies an email on the basis of the
SPF result? Those strings do not contain a v=spf1 prefix, and are not a
rule.
I believe the current discussion relates more to section 2.1 (and not
3.5) which states:
A domain MUST NOT return multiple records that begin with the word
"v=spf1". If more than one "v=spf1" record is returned, this
constitutes a syntax error and the result is "unknown".
--Jonathan
-------
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?¡