Julian Mehnle wrote:
| SPF no record | SPF timeout or
| SPF no v=spf1 | RCODE not 0/3
-----------------+----------------+---------------
TXT no record | None | None
TXT no v=spf1 | |
-----------------+----------------+---------------
TXT timeout or | TempError | TempError
RCODE not 0/3 | |
[...]
*sigh*
Don't worry, I think that's fine now. What you don't have
is the case "good SPF record intentionally without v=spf1".
Wayne and Alex said that "unidentified garbage in a reply
for SPF" is really not the same as "intentionally no v=spf1".
We can't expect RFC 4408 implementations to identify what's
what, random garbage or good spf2.0, we must assume garbage.
Therefore my idea "good SPF record intentionally without
v=spf1" can't work, only implementations supporting spf2.0
_and_ v=spf1 could use it.
Have I finally got it, and is that related to your original
question ?
Frank
-------
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