"Scott Kitterman" <spf2(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> wrote in message
All I can say is that the change was extensively discussed here
before it was made and it's to late now...
Sure its to late for the spec, but its definitely not a BCP as you can see.
While I agree MS should clean up the record, I think you will run more
issues like this as bigger companies get on board. This has place an
artificial limit on thier operation.
Basically what it tells the big companies:
You can only have 10 different domains to lookup and if you
can structure your SPF network as such, then SPF is not for
your because SPF verifiers are going to see you as a PERM ERROR"
There is no way in hell am I going to increase my support calls with sysops
and operations asking "Hey, why am I getting PERMERROR from Microsoft?" :-)
No doubt I will add it as a companion option along side the current
RecursiveLimit, I'll call it "DNSLookupLimit" but it will be a default off
with a implementation recommendation of using something much higher than
just 10. Way too low now.
I hear you Scott, but it was a bad decision in my book because the limits
should of focused on redundancy, not the number of times one uses a
particular lookup mechanism. But that's just me. :-)
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
-------
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