On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:28:38 -0400, Meng Weng Wong
<mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 08:42:16AM -0400, Michael Hammer wrote:
|
| I absolutely agree with you Robert. If PRA checking were performed
| under SPF2.0/PRA where people published their records accordingly I
| wouldn't be as concerned.
|
| The problem is that unpredictable outcomes are created for people who
| published SPF1 records according to the SPF1 requirements in good
| faith.
I negotiated with MS on this issue and the answer is "if
you're not comfortable with SPF1 records being used in PRA
context, you can just publish
domain.com TXT "spf2.0/pra"
That record means the spf1 record won't be used for PRA.
The way I see it, the onus is on MS and anyone else
implementing PRA to specialcase around failures of the PRA
to DTRT. (eg EzMLM, Yahoo!Groups).
It would appear to me that the outcome you negotiated with MS is to
place the onus on the publisher of the SPF1 record to work around the
failures of SenderID/PRA implementation to DTRT.
Mike