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 its
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
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
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't believe this
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, this
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
