Frank Ellermann wrote on Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:42 PM -0600:
Seth Goodman wrote:
It looks like there would be both confusion and unintended
consequences if you made a: and mx: implicit.
Arrgghh, no wonder that I misunderstood you, you also misunderstood
me completely. When I wrote "implicit" it wasn't about "strip the
mx: from mx:an.example resulting in an.example".
What I meant was this: Treat "v=spf3 ..." policies implicitly like
"v=spf1 +mx ...", and get rid of the complete mx-mechanism in v=spf3.
It was not about the characters "mx" or "mx:".
Sorry for the misunderstanding. If every SPF3 record contains an
implicit +mx, then what about domains that have separate outbound relays
so their mx'en send no mail? They could list each mx with "-a:", but
that's somewhat unfriendly.
I don't know if any others had trouble with it, but if so, maybe
"opt" would be better. If it only occurs once in a record, then
"options" is not so bad.
Maybe, but too late to change it, I've removed the "do not deploy"
caveat when it was published as I-D. And the ten SPF drafts before
the I-D go back to late 2004, almost always mentioned or announced
here. To some degree (164 matches) also discussed here:
http://search.gmane.org/?query=op%3D&group=gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss
Since we're talking about SPFx, that's not really a limitation.
--
Seth Goodman
-------
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