On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 20:33 -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
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"
But people use implicit MX. You _won't_ get the whole world to upgrade
-- I don't understand why you still can't see that.
What on earth is wrong with just allowing an explicit negative MX
instead of removing the implicit MX? An opt-in solution without breaking
existing practice.
You can sort of achieve this at the moment but not very nicely -- MX
records pointing at 'outer.space.' or 'localhost.' or with numbers
instead of names (although some broken MTAs actually try to interpret
the numbers as IPv4 addresses if you do that).
--
dwmw2