On 05/06/2006 14:29, Hector Santos wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Kitterman" <spf2(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com>
Newsgroups: spf.-.sender.policy.framework.discussion
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] PermError: Too many DNS lookups at Microsoft.com
I think you are still using the old (pre-MARID/2004) recursion
limits. The current approach is a little different:
I see. But this is one of those things that was changed without much
insight to the repercussions. :-)
You see it as PERMERROR. Classic SPF implementations sees it as a
SOFTFAIL.
:-)
Too bad I was out of the loop when this decision was made.
Thats a major difference in SPF implementations and now you see the effect
for large SPF organization/networks wishing to support SPF.
A 10 DNS is WAY too small for a big SPF network. But more importantly, it
should not be on the number of duplicate mechanisms but on redundancy and
recursion first of the same domains. The SPF client needs to cache/record
exactly what it is looking up for the particular transaction.
All I can say is that the change was extensively discussed here before it was
made and it's to late now...
Scott K
-------
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