This was just an example, but I think it is a reasonable example.
Also, my ISP (Comcast.net) does not support port 587.
I repeat, it seems like this does not scale well.
Guy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of Andy
Bakun
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 5:08 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] RE: rr.com and SPF records
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 16:43 -0500, Guy wrote:
You have a very good point here. ISPs should limit the number of lookups
to
9 or 8 so that a customer could use "include:ISP.com". Is this noted as a
SHOULD in the spec?
As a non-ISP, if I were to use 2 different ISPs, 1 from home and 1 on the
road, I would need to use 2 includes and maybe MX. In this case the ISPs
would need to be at 4 lookups each!
It seems like this does not scale well.
As a non-ISP, short of running your own SMTP server, you may want to
consider using SMTP AUTH (on the mail submission port, 587) to drop all
your mail off at your Email Service Provider's (which may be the same as
your ISP) system, no matter where you are. This should reduce SPF
record complexity considerably. If your ESP doesn't provide mail
submission via SMTP AUTH (or even POP before SMTP) service, you should
ask them to.
--
Andy Bakun <spf(_at_)leave-it-to-grace(_dot_)com>
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper! http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com