Stuart,
I like the 'spf=domain' modifier, as it is pretty much what I had in
mind, but I'm not sure there would be way to specify a NOT version of
that modifier (in other words explicitly requesting the requester not
do a check for the new SPF RR).
I suppose that the NOT version would really only amount to being a
nicety in the specification, where a site has a DNS that does not
support the RR and is trying to avoid generating DNS log errors on
their side for and SPF RR requests by setting their SPF TXT record in
this way. I'm just looking at ways to limit possible objections
people might hurtle regarding the new RR as it starts to roll out. I
want to avoid seeing more of the "SPF breaks this or causes problems
with that" class of messages from some people as a function of moving
to the SPF RR.
Best,
Alan Maitland
WebMaster(_at_)Commerco(_dot_)Net
The Commerce Company - Making Commerce Simple(sm)
http://WWW.Commerco.Com/
At 09:50 AM 8/12/2005, you wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Commerco WebMaster wrote:
> Somewhere down the road, publishers might also want to use this
> ability to reduce the amount of traffic from redundant data being
> sent by both a TXT RR and SPF RR request. Eventually, just
> publishing a TXT "v=spf1 +spf" could be interpreted as, "why yes, we
> do publish SPF data, but your answer is found at our SPF RR, so use that".
A good idea. But let me polish it a little. You want to use a
modifier so as to be backward compatible. I would suggest a
'spf=domain' modifier that works exactly like 'redirect=domain', except
it only fetches a type99 SPF record.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.