In
<2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011133BC(_at_)mou1wnexm02(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
I very much doubt that the SPF syntax will need a revision so
serious that the version number has to change. But the addition
of new features within the SPF framework is absolutely certain
if it is going to continue.
I would strongly object to any change to spf1 that would require
implementations to have to check anything other than an IP address, a
MAIL FROM: string and a HELO string.
I would strongly support a seperate system that uses SPF to verify
mail headers.
I have no problem with using SPF modifiers to advertise other
email related information.
If somebody wishes to publish additional data points in their
DNS for any
other purpose (related or unrelated) they can do so with or
without SPF's
help.
You forget that SPF has claimed the TXT record as its own.
No it doesn't. SPF claims TXT records that begin with "v=spf1" and
likely strings with "v=spf[0-9]+".
It is not feature creep, the feature set has been discussed
for a very long time.
Lots of stuff has been discussed for a very long time. SPF is not a
FUSSP. It is a tool that does one job well and a tool that supports
other tools to work far better.
-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
Wiki:
http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/HomePage
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡