In <a06002000bc27d8e44521(_at_)[210(_dot_)8(_dot_)17(_dot_)101]> geoffj
<geoffj(_at_)thestrix(_dot_)net> writes:
This makes sense, but I cannot make sense of the decision
to use a TXT record rather than add a TXT to the MX record.
It seems so much neater to keep all the email related dns
stuff in the MX record. We are after all just adding to MX
what should have been there from the start.
Can someone explain to me in brief why this result was reached?
Hi.
I'm not sure I quite understand your question.
Do mean that instead of having something like:
example.com. MX mx.example.com
example.com. TXT "v=spf mx -all"
mx.example.com. A 10.9.8.7
You would have something like:
example.com. MX mx.example.com "v=spf mx -all"
mx.example.com. A 10.9.8.7
If so, the reason that this choice wasn't made was because such a
change would require eveyone to update all the DNS software on the
Internet. The DNS system doesn't allow such extentions to existing
resource records.
-wayne
-------
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?¡