I think it would be a mistake to include both versions in one TXT entry in
the zonefile. The record could easily get too long to be workable (within
the size limit) and modifying/editing it will become more complicated for
those of us who are less tech-savvy. It also risks "polluting" classic-spf
with the problems of Sender-ID's licence and patent.
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Harris" <jgh(_at_)wizmail(_dot_)org>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Sender ID and Return Path
Scott Kitterman wrote:
-----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
Jeremy Harris
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 2:49 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Sender ID and Return Path
Third possibility:
* Permit the spf2/pra record to reference the spf1 record.
See this thread on the MXCOMP list for a discussion of that idea:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03409.html
Thanks for the ref. However, that discussion seems to assume
that the MTA doing the DNS lookup infers a reference to the spf1
record. I'm suggesting that the published TXT record may
include both spf1 and spf2 records, but that the latter may
include (in simple cases, consist wholly of) an explicit reference
to the spf1 record.
The reference is thus under the control of the domain owner so
no automatic opt-in to Sender-ID need or should be inferred by
the MTA.
Cheers,
Jeremy
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta
features SPF and Sender ID.
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