In <008f01c3d9f0$95694b30$cec8d684(_at_)sraq(_dot_)intra>
<guillaume(_at_)filion(_dot_)org> writes:
With the change that Phillip is proposing, the client would only need to
query the _spf subdomain (i.e. _spf.altavista.com), if you recieve
something, you know that you have a SPF record and you can parse it.
You don't know that any text record in the _spf subdomain is an SPF
record. You are just as likely to find a domain out there that
already has an _spf record as one that has a TXT record that begins
with "v=spf1 ".
Also, you still need to check the version string since future versions
of SPF can coexist with previous versions. It is perfectly reasonable
to publish several SPF records.
Anyway, I liked the _spf subdomain back when it was in the proposal,
but I can't see any reason to revisit the issue now.
-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?¡