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
deployed.

http://www.openspf.org/Statistics
See especially http://utility.nokia.net/~lars/meter/spf.html


--
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE #2495, CISSP #78281, CNX
Austin Energy
http://www.austinenergy.com


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkj/UJ0ACgkQGvhCU13z7IiNNwCglzqLUgauVe1OB6qRnaGGBOiU
pgQAniwy0wGl0nKLDBUvpVoXb/C8mNHE
=PF/Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----