johnp wrote:
Mark Berry wrote:
If I'm not getting the wrong end of the stick, the proposal is to
publish spf info for ISP's who do not do so themselves?
Ummm, I think it will be opening a real can of worms if your 'proxy'
record causes any third party who has not explicitly requested you do
this on their behalf, loose some mail due to it.
The proxy is really intended to satisfy includes which would otherwise
break a valid record. All the operators within the proxy are given as
?ip4: and the include from the users record itself will be ?include: so
there will be no "fail" because of the proxy, and there will be a lot of
"pass" results which would otherwise not happen.
I've got several ISP's on the request list now
cox.net
comcast.net
rogers.com
vianet.ca
sympatico.ca
blackberry.net
Anyone got any more?
No, but I think you can strike sympatico.ca off the list, they are
publishing now:
[root(_at_)bigone5 logs]# dig -t TXT +short sympatico.ca
"v=spf1 ip4:142.182.48.192/27 ip4:206.172.20.49 ip4:206.47.72.90
ip4:206.47.60.9
0 ip4:206.47.199.0/24 ip4:209.226.175.0/24 include:hotmail.com ?all"
[root(_at_)bigone5 logs]#
Terry
Slainte
JohnP
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription, please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
--
Terry Fielder
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Associate Director Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
Fax: (416) 441-9085