I vote yes to: "deprecating implicit MX".
You would need a phase-in time, maybe 1 year to comply.
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 15, 2004 1:00 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Wildcard DNS entry
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:41:03AM -0400, David Brodbeck wrote:
|
| That's basically callback verification, isn't it, other than the central
database?
|
i guess so --- if consensus does not find in favour of one
of the other solutions proposed in this thread, eg
deprecating implicit MX, then callback verifiation might be
one alternative.
-------
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