On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 10:36:32AM -0600, wayne wrote:
|
| Once upon a time, I advocated using v=spf<major>.<minor>, but I'm no
| longer so hot on the idea. Minor versions are generally used when
| compatible changes are made, while major versions are for incompatible
| changes. However, the only purpose of changing the version number in
| the SPF records is to note that incompatible changes in the spec have
| been made.
|
|
| Ok, the truth is that I could easily live with just about any version
| number system, as long as it is reasonably short.
|
I'm interested in the extensibility thing --- suppose a domain wants to
say
I do both designated-sender and DK authentication. I already have the
DS stuff in there, but now I want to be able to experiment with DK. I
want to publish two forms of records, so that clients that read DK will
only evaluate that, and not the IP.
I want to be able to say
v=spf1 a mx -all
v=spf1.x-dk dk -all
And clients that are x-dk aware would ignore the first line.
If we can unambiguously specify that version extensions are to be
ignored by strict spf interpreters, that leaves room open for
innovation.
-------
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?¡