spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Draft ammendments on DNS lookup limits

2005-03-21 13:35:07
-----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 Scott 
Kitterman
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 5:23 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Draft ammendments on DNS lookup limits


-----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: Friday, March 18, 2005 5:04 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Draft ammendments on DNS lookup limits

I think your megapath ISP should be smacked for needlessly
publishing such an expensive record. Their compiled record looks
like this:

spfcompile -sender s(_at_)megapathdsl(_dot_)net

  Compiled record (10 mechs, len 155):

  v=spf1 ip4:66.80.60.21 ip4:66.80.60.20 ip4:66.80.60.31
  ip4:66.80.60.30 ip4:66.80.60.32 ip4:66.80.60.37 ip4:66.80.60.36
  ip4:66.80.60.38 ip4:66.80.130.3 -all


Suposedly they are in control of all their servers, so they can list
their IPs, instead of references to them.

I'll put in a trouble call and see if I can get them to change it...

OK.  As promised, I've put in the trouble ticket asking for the record to be
changed.  We'll see what happens...

Scott Kitterman