-----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 8:13 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 18:43 -0500, Guy wrote:
This was just an example, but I think it is a reasonable example.
Also, my ISP (Comcast.net) does not support port 587.
Uh, which is why I said you should ask them to. They aren't going to
change or expand their service offerings unless you let them know what
you want. Or get another ESP and let your dollars do the talking.
I repeat, it seems like this does not scale well.
It doesn't matter if it scales or not if you try to work with the system
rather than against it. Your original example:
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!
Why don't you submit your email to the same ESP no matter where you are?
Then your own domain's SPF record only needs to include a single ESP's
SPF record. Why is this not a viable option? Your example is
reasonable, yes, and so is what has been suggested as a solution.
To the extent that ESP has 100% uptime, you are right. I currently list 3
companies mail servers in my record...
1. My ESP - I use this when connecting on the road and also if I can't get
through using my DSL/Cable provider's MTA.
2. DSL Provider's MTA - My primary.
3. Cable company's MTA - I have a cable modem for backup connectivity, so I
list their MTA for when I connect that way. (BTA, this is Comcast and I HAVE
asked. They are clueless beyond belief).
You may believe that I don't need all this redundancy, but I do. If I'm not
doing e-mail, I'm pretty much out of business.
Scott K