On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 09:20:13PM +0200, jpinkerton wrote:
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"
That goes without saying..
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 :-(
Well, we might have to, since 'the DNS people' apparently are not happy with
our use of TXT records. Also, a dedicated RR is imho the preferred solution.
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?
But we also want new stuff in their for unified spf, and some other fixes in
the spf1 syntax (eg. looking up the domain tree if no spf records were found).
So we do need spf2.0 at some time.
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/