> Behalf Of wayne
> > The way to do this is to introduce a pointer record using CNAME as
> > follows:
> >
> > _prefix.exists.example.comTXT "Policy1"
> > *.example.com CNAME _wildcard.example.com
> > _prefix._wildcard.example.com TXT "Policy2"
>
> I don
> Behalf Of wayne
> > At some point there is a boundary between infrastructure the sender
> > has control of and where he does not. That boundary is very clearly
> > defined in my universe but even if it was ambiguous it would still
> > exist.
>
> The problem is that for different identities, t
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> Once that boundary is defined the definition is fair game for
> any party to use to interpret it to meet their operational
> needs.
The boundaries are different and incompatible for spf2.0/mfrom
(roughly te same as v=spf1) and spf2.0/pra. That's the point
of the ap
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, John Glube wrote:
|The only relevant boundary is between what the sender
|controls and what they do not. All that any sender,
|forwarder or any other mail injector can ever be expected
|to do is to define the boundaries of the systems they
|control.
|
|Once that boundary is
"Two will leave but only one shall return"...I'm by no means suggesting
that's a desirable approach to decision making but we've managed to get
ourselves into a place where I think it's now the best way out. Fortunately
since this incompatibility will result in email that should have been
received
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 12:00 -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
But if reuse of spf1 records is really realy the only way for MS
and it wants to continue, then the only possibility for negotiation
I see is to get it part the way for both sides. This woul
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 12:00 -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> But if reuse of spf1 records is really realy the only way for MS
> and it wants to continue, then the only possibility for negotiation
> I see is to get it part the way for both sides. This would involve:
>1. MS agrees to change i
