On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 03:59:17PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
| and the vast majority of published SPF records are v1. Nonetheless,
| Hotmail says that they will only check v2 records, and if a domain has
| no record, they'll treat that as a Sender-ID failure and display the
| yellow warning box.
Classic MicroSoft behaviour is it not.
No, that the thing - it is not. Having them only use their own spf2.0/pra
records is what we've been asking them - and they've been most resistant
to accept.
So that's yet another thing where they've earned the benefit of doubt.
I seem to recall something similar happening to AOL, eons ago.
On the other hand: if MS checks against v=spf1 records and this results
in a PASS, they could display "verified". I see no objection to that,
is there? This would be handy for the many cases where RFC822_from
equals RFC821_from.
cheers
Alex