Hi Wayne
I take your point about not breaking the paradigm.
But TXT records are easily returned by MX lookups.
So this is more like:
mx.example.com. A 10.9.8.7
TXT "v=spf mx -all"
Try any dns client seeking an MX record
on 210.8.17.100 to see this. I know that MX lookups
don't usually return TXT records, but there is no reason
I suspect why they shouldn't, just as they usually return
NS and A records. This is of course a redundancy which
is intended to reduce lookups I take it. And the same
might go for the spf TXT record perhaps.
geoffj
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?¡
--
Servatricks Pty Ltd
Suite 406
530 Little Collins St
geoffj(_at_)thestrix(_dot_)net
0438 855 542
0414 939 523
-------
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?¡