On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
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 have real hard time believing Microsoft is doing "the right thing".
I'm sure there are number of good people working at Microsoft, but their
overall behavior dictated by their management rarely shows this side,
plus they always seem to have some dark^H^H^H^H private agenda...
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.
i.e. see my proposal for compromise at the buttom of:
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200506/0326.html
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net