spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] Re: Does an SPF record need to be an IP?

2005-11-07 04:07:01
Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:

You are correct.
I say he's not.

No consensus => tilt ;-)

There's a reason why some of us are able to make a living
out of computers.  It requires knowledge, understanding,
education and practice.

Sure, and I also agree that not everyody is a physician.

OTOH the "bogus bounces disease" is no rocket science, it
can hit Joe Sixpack, and he can be in a position where
his only "expert" is wizard.html.

And I'm confident that we'll find a simple explanation
how stuff works for this Joe.  After all it's only "define
your borders in the terms of CIDRs - accuracy unnecessary
as long as you cover all sending IPs - expressed by
numbers (ip4) or names (a) or receiving names (mx) or
other stuff as defined in [link].  If you have no clue what
an MX is you probably need it in your policy" etc. with an
explanation of ?all, ~all, -all.

SPF is KISS if you ignore macros, exp, exists, and ptr.

Even 'exists' is relatively simple but nothing for Joe on
the 1st page he reads:  http://openspf.org/mechanisms.html

Modulo layout that page is okay precisely as Meng (?) wrote
it back in 2003 (?).  For Joe we could offer another view,
simple mechanisms + examples vs. advanced topics like ptr
or exists on other pages.
                          Bye, Frank


-------
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