The only reason for an unlimited spf record is laziness.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer(_at_)nic(_dot_)fr>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 4:37 AM
Subject: [spf-discuss] Re: Military
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:41:52PM -0400,
Meng Weng Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> wrote
a message of 26 lines which said:
There will always be domains who will find SPF impractical. The
answer for them is to publish a simple "v=spf1 ?all" record.
We can assume that future SPF implementations will allow the system
administrator to refuse policies that are "too lax" such as the one
you mention or such as "v=spf1 a:0.0.0.0/0".
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Send us money! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
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