On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, alan wrote:
show me one possible exception that would pass this rule and fail yours {or
vice versa}
if you can't then admit the fact the two i have sent {though the latter}
v=spf1 a:{h4r}.smtp.example.com -all
is much more compact and simple to achieve identical results
I think you are right. The above does not validate HELO, but achieves
pass/fail in the desired situations, which is good enough for the
purpose of validating MTAs by HELO naming convention.
Ok, so can the proposed HELO mechanism. While I can come up with
scenarios where that trick won't work, they would be rather contrived.
I'll go back to proposing a "not" prefix for mechanisms so I don't have
to use convoluted -include:... constructs.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com