----- Original Message -----
From: "Koen Martens" <spf(_at_)metro(_dot_)cx>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03
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??
Surely it's going to be done by publishing both a TXT record and an SPF
record for a while, until the SPF record is fully "settled in"
BTW - this is exactly what M$ wanted - to mess up the opposition :-/ Look
at all the TXT records already published (some say half a million). Are we
really going to tell all these wonderful people that they now have to change
their TXT records into SPF records? What a mess :-(
It would be *much* better to come up with a method of accepting the TXT
records as they are now. M$'s new-fangled system might want other stuff in
the TXT record, but surely we can filter that out at the MTA, and just
accept the SPF element of the TXT record?
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492