spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03

2004-09-26 11:06:19
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 01:29:43AM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Koen Martens wrote:

If we're calling the RR 'SPF' we might even want to keep the
version in there, giving "v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.4 -all",

basically: the same as we have now but then in SPF RR instead
of TXT.. Does this make any sense?

Yes, IIRC Mark said essentially the same on the former MARID
list, less confusion if the legacy TXT format and the SPF RR
use exactly the same format for exactly the same domain.

It would be spf2.0/mfrom or similar scopes instead of v=spf1,
or did you intentionally use "v=spf1" (and if so, why ;-) ?

Yes, it should be spf2.0/mfrom. But how the heck are we going to do the 
transition? Should we all publish v=spf1 and v=spf2.0/* at the same time for a 
while?? 

Koen

-- 
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/