Re: SPF and SIP

There is nothing to prevent the SPF framework being used for SIP. I
haven't given it too much thought so I don't know how practical it is
or what issues might be related to doing so.

Remember though, the idea is to prevent forgery, not SPAM.

This is really no different than SPF2.0/PRA. I wouldn't recommend
trying to shoehorn in SIP using SPF1.

Just a few random thoughts.

Mike

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: RE: rr.com and SPF records, (continued) Re: RE: rr.com and SPF records, Radu Hociung Re: RE: rr.com and SPF records, Radu Hociung RE: rr.com and SPF records, David MacQuigg Re: RE: rr.com and SPF records, william(at)elan.net SPF and SIP, Julian Lawrence Re: SPF and SIP, MZR RE: SPF and SIP, Julian Lawrence OT: Re: SPF and SIP, Alex van den Bogaerdt Re: OT: Re: SPF and SIP, Jeroen Massar Re: OT: Re: SPF and SIP, Alex van den Bogaerdt Re: SPF and SIP, Michael Hammer <= Re: RE: rr.com and SPF records, David MacQuigg Re: RE: rr.com and SPF records, Commerco WebMaster RE: RE: rr.com and SPF records, David MacQuigg RE: RE: rr.com and SPF records, william(at)elan.net RE: RE: rr.com and SPF records, Commerco WebMaster RE: RE: rr.com and SPF records, David MacQuigg Re: RE: rr.com and SPF records, Scott Kitterman

Previous by Date:	Re: Re: DNS load research, Andy Bakun
Next by Date:	RE: RE: rr.com and SPF records, David MacQuigg
Previous by Thread:	Re: OT: Re: SPF and SIP, Alex van den Bogaerdt
Next by Thread:	Re: RE: rr.com and SPF records, David MacQuigg
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]