-----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 Radu
Hociung
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 1:34 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Draft ammendments on DNS lookup limits
A limit of 10 seemed low to me to when I started thinking about this a
couple of months ago. I have been looking for real situations that
honestly require more than that, and I couldn't find any. It doesn't
mean they don't exist. Please point them out if they do.
A limit of 10 is to low!
My primary ISP has 10 mechanisms in it's SPF record. Under your scenario, I
can't even include them.
Your retort will no doubt be that they should publish IP addresses. Should
doesn't help me a bit. There are supposed to be something more than
1,000,000 sender policies published already. You can't change the rules on
them now.
If this were a year ago (or certainly two), then fine, but it's not. How
many sender policies are you going to break?
As I said in a message yesterday, I'm going to ask the ISP to reduce the
cost of their record, but unless they do that, if 10's the limit, then I'll
have to bail out of SPF.
I say again, how many currently valid sender policies do you think it's OK
to break?
Scott Kitterman