-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dick St.Peters wrote:
Julian Mehnle writes:
As Paul Vixie pointed out[2], we might want to consider this technique
for a future version of SPF.
Reading reference 2 shows Paul did NOT recommend zone cuts for a
future SPF.
For the record: I did NOT say he "recommended" it (nor anything to that
effect). My wording was slightly ambiguous, and the suggestion to
"consider this technique for a future version of SPF" was entirely my own.
What he did do was say "somebody should tell the SPF people though"
[about the draft's technique for finding zone cuts], presumably on the
assumption that SPF still used zone cuts. Thankfully it does not, and
if reason prevails, it never will.
Well, the implicit MX rule obviously poses a significant problem for those
who do not want to publish an SPF record for each and every A record in
their domain, so I don't think the concept of a zone cut default should
not be discarded lightly. Depending on whether "somehost.protecteddomain.
com" forgery becomes a serious problem in the future, we may have to
review the issue. Another influencing factor might be that a dedicated
SPF RR type is now available.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEd6hTwL7PKlBZWjsRAvFnAKCp6J40usYfTwk3BfE/EV+OVbDYIgCfb+ay
aHVL1Gu7HKdfAwaKwHV2O/8=
=S/YT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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