-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
Here is an example of SPF adversely affecting a legitimate sender who
does not wish to participate (name changed to protect privacy):
$ host -t txt namechanged.org
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
Why don't they respond to TXT queries? They get charged by the query
response. Since they don't use TXT queries, why should they pay for
the DNS service to reply "we don't have any"?
But, when they try to send mail to SPF checking domains, the SPF result
is temperror - usually resulting in a 451 rejection.
I recognize that SPF is not strictly backwards-compatible in this case.
However, their behavior is really brain-dead, and the consequences ought
to be expected. The correct solution would be to respond with a "zero
answers" DNS packet and _NOT_ be charged for such DNS responses.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFM2UxwL7PKlBZWjsRAho1AKCZXDSMJ3VLJ+onyohdeYd4suVvJACeNdEW
Xii/x3j91w8ev/U31P1jmZo=
=3JpW
-----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