So, like, the other day Jonathan Steinert mumbled:
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".
What bothered me about the multiple TXT records approach was that
one can't really tell if a TXT record was intended to be for SPF's
use unless it had the "v=spf1" prefix or it "looked right" and did
not have syntax errors. In combination with an explicit ordering
needed to have things like "v=spf1" first and the "-all" at then end,
the other parts, even though long and potentially multiple TXT records,
are all explicitly unordered.
Maybe I'm confused.
jdl
-------
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?¡