This is a discussion on Re: OT: DNS restrictions for a mail server - SpamAssassin ; On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 17:04 +0200, mouss wrote: > Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit : > >>> On 21.10.08 19:31, mouss wrote: > >>>> Search for RMX (Reverse Mail eXchanger). > > On 22.10.08 15:49, mouss wrote: > >> ...
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 17:04 +0200, mouss wrote:
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
> >>> On 21.10.08 19:31, mouss wrote:
> >>>> Search for RMX (Reverse Mail eXchanger).
> > On 22.10.08 15:49, mouss wrote:
> >> In my understanding, these are different concepts. In particular, RMX
> >> doesn't hijack the TXT record, which is one of the major sins of SPF.
> > Yes, but they both were designed to do the same work. SPF however can do
> > more. TXT was used because nothing else could, at least I think so.
RFC 4408, section 3.1.1, defines a new RR type for SPF. But waiting for
everyone in the world to upgrade their DNS resolver to handle the new RR
type would have greatly slowed the adoption of SPF.
> Maybe. but hijacking the TXT record got many people against SPF. and it
> doesn't look like SPF is widespread. so the "compatibility"/-ease of
> deployment argument didn't really catch.
I'm not certain what you are talking about. SPF is very commonly
See especially http://utility.nokia.net/~lars/meter/spf.html
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE #2495, CISSP #78281, CNX
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----