It appears that Alessandro Vesely via dmarc-discuss <ves...@tana.it> said:
>I see. I note that the examples you mention, except some kind of marketing, >need to receive mail, besides sending it. Indeed, being bidirectional is a >peculiar email characteristics. So, if a service can be integrated with a >mail >system, then it should be able to use its incoming as well as outgoing >servers. > Otherwise, it deserves using its own subdomain. Sorry, but that's just silly. Nobody ever said that inbound and outbound mail has to take the same path. >>> Dmarcian has a good SPF compiler already. It is somewhat unpractical, as >>> you'd >>> need to copy its result to your zone file, and repeat that operation as >>> often >>> as needed. It doesn't sound awful to call it from a cron job. >> >> This is a *vastly* higher level of technical expertise than most >> organisations >> have available for this. > >Most likely, technology-impaired companies don't even host their own DNS. The >DNS providers who do that for them should have an adequate level of expertise, >though. Please excuse me while I chuckle. You've seen how many screwed up SPF records there are. Whatever the reason was to limit SPF to 10 lookups, on today's Internet there is no point, and the change to increase the limit, unlike what you're proposing, is trivial to implement. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
