spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Wildcard DNS entry

2004-09-08 20:41:10
I like option 4.  But only for the first year, after that assume "-all".
But "-all" only if IETF accepts spf as a standard.
During the first year, send a warning back to the sender about the grace
period?

Option 2 is good also.  But how high do you climb?  All the way to "."?

Maybe both!  Climb the tree, if nothing found assume "a/24 mx/24 ptr -all".

But as the spec is today...  I should use option 3?

Thanks for the response!

Guy


-----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 Meng 
Weng Wong
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 8:33 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Wildcard DNS entry

On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 07:01:02PM -0400, guy wrote:
| 
| >From what I have read, I should give each host a spf record!
| This does not seem reasonable for large sites.  For me it is ok.
| But if this is true, it seems likely most people don't know to do it.
| If I am correct, this needs to be in the spec, or if it is, it needs to be
| in the spec twice!  Or made very clear.

Yeah, there are four classes of solutions, really.

1) deprecate "implicit mx"
2) modify spec to allow searching up the tree, as Wayne has
   proposed in the past
3) put an SPF record on each host
4) encourage the world to assume "a/24 mx/24 ptr -all" for
   non-publishing domains

-------
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