In
<2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011132E7(_at_)mou1wnexm02(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
In effect what you are saying here is that SPF is going to be so important
that it can in effect claim TXT for exclusive use.
Just those with the magic string at the beginning that says "v=spf1 ".
There are other systems that co-opt TXT records and most of them use a
magic string also. It is incumbent on those systems that overload the
use of the TXT record to make sure that they don't conflict with past
or future usage, and I think SPF accomplishes that just fine with the
version string.
As I said earlier, I really don't see this as a big issue. I didn't
even see it as a big enough issue back when it was changed to object
very much.
-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?¡