--Commerco WebMaster <Webmaster(_at_)Commerco(_dot_)Net> wrote:
The following was included in a reply to the "Odd Problem" thread, but I
wanted to get some direct feedback to my thought as expanded here.
Does it make any sense at all (or would it be appropriate) to have an
additional parameter associated with an "include:" to force MX compliance
at the included domain only if no SPF is published at the included domain
(e.g., perhaps something like "include:DNS77.COM include-:MX")?
Where the include-: could have all appropriate standard SPF syntax to
follow (e.g. IP4:, A, MX, etc).
In this way, a domain owner could be explicit about what gets sent and
received via a non-SPF publishing third party "include:" domain. For
example, if I was a LARGEISP.NET user and wanted to send mail from my
domain, but through LARGEISP.NET's MTA, if I created a record with
include:LARGEISP.NET and include-: MX, that might mean it was acceptable
for me to send mail from my domain name, through LARGEISP.NET but only
via LARGEISP.NET's MX servers.
I understand where you are going with this and it sounds like a good idea
on the surface.
Here is a question. Let's say a technically-savvy and spf-aware ISP would
like to support their dialup users, and there are cases where the dialup
users who have their own domains would like a different SPF record to
include. Do you think having an SPF record at LARGEISP.NET (for the mail
actually coming from largeisp.net) and having a different record
_OUTMX.LARGEISP.NET (more suitable for include) would serve the needs of
those customers?
later
gregc
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>