Stuart,
I don't see the advantage of your proposal. The SPF specification says that
if no SPF record is published, then to return unknown. Your record says
exactly the same thing. What value does your proposal add?
Marc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Stuart
D. Gathman
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 4:46 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] Official default SPF record
The "guess" heuristic could be codified by specifying a default record
for checkers to use when no SPF record is published. This would correctly
handle the vast majority of domains, and for those where it doesn't do the
right thing - they only need to publish a record. Even if it is only
"v=spf1 ?all". Hopefully, this would motivate sysadmins to do the trivial
work of adding the SPF record. It is less trivial to add SRS, but they
can use ?all until they get around to it.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703
591-6154
"Very few of our customers are going to have a pure Unix
or pure Windows environment." - Dennis Oldroyd, Microsoft Corporation
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/spf-draft-200403.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com