-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
If you manage to change the definition of "SPF record" to mean
"SPF-type RR" only, I'm fine with that.
Quoth the bible:
| An SPF-compliant domain name SHOULD have SPF records of both RR types.
The terminology in 4408 is carefully chosen. It uses "SPF records" for
the textual content of a TXT or SPF RR starting with "v=spf1 " (or the
pathological case "v=spf1").
Yeah, that's why I think we should not fight ourselves on this.
Instead, let's try to get support for the SPF RR type deployed everywhere
(yes, it's going to take a long while). I wonder when BIND 9.4 will
finally come out. *sigh* Anyone willing to lobby Microsoft about their
DNS server (and resolver) implementation?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFdgXswL7PKlBZWjsRAqu7AJ9V7Zqr6Sv6k6GcRa4RQ06i+t/89ACfQsMA
57/2HFK+A038EviR+157+sI=
=xMBL
-----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/?list_id=735