--On Samstag, November 11, 2006 14:36:20 +0000 "K.J. Petrie"
<spf(_dot_)lists(_at_)instabook(_dot_)com> wrote:
[...]
So, to my proposed addition, which is, alongside the spf record for a
domain, I suggest a second record, which I shall call Recipient Protocol
Framework (RPF). The RPF record would be similar in format to an SPF
[...]
such abuse. (I would have no objection to tightening this further. The
aim is to allow a domain owner to turn SPF checking off in a specific
case, whilst ensuring a spammer would not find it a practical method for
widespread disabling of the system.)
I don't think this would be the best solution. The exist mechanism
combined with macro expansion can almost do the job. All that would be
necessary to be able to whitelist specific receiving systems this way
would be two additional expansions: ip-address and domain of the
receiving system (AFAICS we currently have only the sending system
available outside of "exp"). Then you could simply add "+exists:MACRO"
and add an A RR for each combination of localpart/receiver that you want
to whitelist.
I use something like this to whitelist some localparts (compare results
for domain "doeblitz.net" and the valid localparts "doeblitz" and
"susanne").
Adding two macro expansions is IMHO a much cheaper way than a complete
new protocol.
Ralf Döblitz
-------
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/?list_id=735