In <200512291845(_dot_)54520(_dot_)julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> Julian Mehnle
<julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> writes:
Wayne Schlitt wrote:
Legalistic reason: "MX 0 ." is illegal because "." is not a valid
FQDN, at least not for what is generally considered an FQDN by the SPF
specification.
The "." is a fully-qualified domain name, just like "/" is an absolute
path name. It is completely valid.
That's why I added the second part of my sentence.
An SPF record of "v=spf1 mx:. -all" would be invalid, by the SPF
ABNF. The SPF spec doesn't try to dictate the form of the records
that are looked up, that is for other RFCs to deal with.
While things like "example.org MX 1.2.3.4" and "example.org CNAME
1.2.3.4" are bogus and cause wasted traffic to the root name servers,
there is nothing in the RFCs that say that people can't have them.
SPF doesn't solve these problems, it just doesn't add to the problem
by allowing "v=spf1 a:1.2.3.4 -all".
-wayne
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
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