--Phil Howard <phil-spf-discuss(_at_)ipal(_dot_)net> wrote:
How about "v=spf1+" meaning "experimental additions" to version 1, and
that such a record can co-exist with "v=spf1" so you can publish a normal
specification at the same time?
@ IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:10.0.0.0/8 -all"
@ IN TXT "v=spf1+ foo:bar ip4:10.0.0.0/8 ?all"
That's probably fine. Does the spec currently require v=spf1 to be
followed by a space? If the only requirement is v=spf1{anything} then
v=spf1+ might get accidentally picked up by some parsers. But if that is
the case then the same problem exists with v=spf10.
The spec wasn't clear on what would happen in future versions. The second
version will probably say something like "Look for TXT records starting
with v=spf2 - if none present, look for v=spf1 and continue with that, in
compatibility mode. Administrators should publish both v=spf2 and v=spf1
records for [some recommended length of time]"
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>
-------
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?¡