In <200601122354(_dot_)35080(_dot_)julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> Julian Mehnle
<julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> writes:
Wayne Schlitt wrote:
There have been several ways to [represent scopes]:
Besides the three I mentioned, I forgot about the scope variable
method.
As has been pointed out, we can certainly have more than one of these
methods.
I have been thinking on this for quite a while now but have kept silent
because it didn't seem to be the right time to re-open the issue, but now
that you mentioned it...
1) add scoping to the include: and redirect= mechanisms. Something
like this:
TXT "spf2.0/mfrom include:mydomain.esp.com redirect=%{d}/pra"
TXT "spf2.0/pra ip4:1.2.3.0/24 ip4:2.3.4.0/24 -all"
That is, on the include: and redirect= mechanisms, you can add a
"/" followed by a list of scopes that you want to use instead of
the current scope.
[...]
I also forgot to point out that the method of adding scopes to the
include and redirect mechanisms, you can also add version stuff.
So, you could have:
TXT "v=spf1 .... old version1 SPF record"
SPF "v=spf3 redirect=%{d}/spfv1"
This would say that the SPFv3 record is identical to the SPFv1
record. This would make it easier for us to mandate that SPFv3 had to
use SPF records only and this would be a very quick and easy way to
allow people to say "nothing has changed since version 1".
Of course, SPFv3 could also do things like:
TXT "v=spf1 ..."
SPF "v=spf3 smime=always accred=bondedsender.com redirect=%{d}/spfv1"
Where smine= and accred= would be required parts of the SPFv3 drafts.
-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