Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 02:27:54AM -0800, Devin Ganger wrote:
I guess I don't understand why there's so much resistance to just using
TXT records. True, they're used for multiple purposes and that can creat
e problems, but there are other options to work around those problems. B
eing able to say, "You can always and forevermore use SPF with your exis
ting DNS server, no matter what kind it is," is a win. The subtext that
many people I've talked to find in the type99 records is that one day, t
hey're going to either have to abandon later versions of SPF, switch to
a different DNS server, or try to force Microsoft to upgrade their produ
ct to support a record type that is only used by a competing standard.
Who claimed that the SPF RR "is only used by a competing
standard." ? Did you claim this on that presentation?
No, I didn't. SPF and Sender ID, although similar, are *not* the same thing,
and getting Microsoft to add type99 support to their DNS server is going to be
a tough sell given the only reason for it is to support SPF. Type99 support
won't be mandatory for SPF until later versions of the standard, or so I've
gathered from the discussion here, and at that point it will be competing with
Sender ID.
--
Devin L. Ganger, Exchange MVP Email: deving(_at_)3sharp(_dot_)com
3Sharp LLC Phone: 425.882.1032
14700 NE 95th Suite 210 Cell: 425.239.2575
Redmond, WA 98052 Fax: 425.702.8455
(e)Mail Insecurity: http://blogs.3sharp.com/blog/deving/
-------
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