spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism

2005-03-26 10:16:00
...... Original Message .......
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:00:48 -0500 Radu Hociung <radu(_at_)ohmi(_dot_)org> 
wrote:
By the way. Since SPF2/PRA records share the same packet space with the 
SPF1, we will definately have problems. One of these two MUST move to 
their own hostname. For instance _spf.{domain_name} or _spf2.{domain_name}.

Since there are more spf1 records than spf2 records currently published, 
it will probably be PRA that must move.

The move could be done in a backwards compatible way:

If the {domainname} TXT query did not return a PRA record, but did 
return an SPF1 record, try looking at _spf2.{domain_name}
else
There is no PRA record, don't do the extra query.

We should bring this up to the PRA people before they get too close to 
the point of no-changes-acceptable.


The PRA people are at Microsoft.  You can search the MXCOMP archives if you 
want to know who.  
That's also a source of historical information on the political and technical 
history between 
SPF and Caller-ID/Sender ID.  If you aren't well versed in that history (I'm 
not saying you 
aren't, just if), I recommend you read up before you even consider 
contacting them.  Much of this has also been discussed on spf-discuss.

Scott Kitterman


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: Use of New Mask Mechanism, Scott Kitterman <=