I have a concern:
If the SPFv2 says "publish XML, or TXT, but not both", then any MTA's that
don't want the XML
overhead will be unable to block from domains who adopted SPFv2.
I agree, if a domain publishes both XML and TXT, the info sources can conflict.
But setting up
precedence (even if that precedence is XML) resolves that issue. Stipulating
that a domain
publishing XML SPFv2 cannot publish TXT SPFv1 sounds like someone getting heavy
handed trying to
force SPFv2.
If a domain publishes both XML and TXT, any MTA's that only support TXT still
fully SPF functional
even for domains that have adopted the XML way (assuming anyone besides
Microsoft publishes XML, but
spam forged from hotmail should be sufficient justification even if M$ is the
only adopter).
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-----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 Michel
Py
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 4:03 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1
Stuart D. Gathman replied:
I do agree, however, that the XML data is too
large for DNS and ought to be fetched via TCP.
Which leaves a huge question mark whether DNS queries over
TCP are actually going to work as nobody's ever used them.
That's why I like Tim's thing better, as HTTP over TCP is
proven and easy to publish. And it would not create extra
strain on the DNS infrastructure. As an added bonus, HTTPS
could be specified instead of HTTP, making MITM attacks more
difficult.
This makes SPF1 a prerequisite to using SPF2.
I honestly don't see where the issue is.
By sticking with the current _ep subdomain scheme for
SPF2, the layers are more independent. However, the
existing _ep format can contain the link.
Could you post an example? I think I understand what you want
to do but I could not figure out how to make it work within
what is defined in draft-ietf-marid-core-00.txt
Tim Meadowcroft wrote:
Similarly a publisher can choose to publish either or both records
SPF but no XML record: v=spf2 mx -all
XML, no SPF: v=spf2 xml=http://www.schmerg.com/spf.xml
Both: v=spf2 xml=http://www.schmerg.com/spf.xml mx -all
This is definitely something I like as domain owner, no
matter what the syntax.
but I thought it was a good way to AVOID forking SPF (which
I am dead set against - I'd drop interest in SPF if it forked,
whereas if it went XML-in-DNS I'd retain a skeptical interest).
That's exactly how I understood it, and it does make a lot of
sense to me.
Michel.
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
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
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
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
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>