Hi !!
> huh? My point is that there's no "useful data" in the SPF thing, ie, no
> SPFallow or SPFdeny or whatever it was.
>
> foo.com IN TXT "SPFInclude=foo.org"
> foo.org IN TXT "SPFInclude=foo.com"
>
> That doesn't contain any "data" in the context of SPF, not in the context
> of DNS. If I'd meant NODATA, I would have said NODATA.
I will understand that this contains data (a spfinclude that points to
another domain), but no problem, we just misunderstod each other.
Altough
this situation is possible both dns caching and exim's good
implementation
will quickly terminate the possible infinite loop.
> Bully for you. I'm sure everyone else's systems are configured in exactly
> the same way as yours, and hence it will be just as easy for them to do...
sure, but it's not too complicated, is an easy way to designate who can
sen email on your behalf.
> As I've said already, this is not a new idea, and hence there's no reason
> to assume that it will succeed this time.
it's obvious that something must be done to try to have more secure
email,
if nobody does nothing we will be in the same situation for centuries.
This
looks like a good idea, not perfect, but it could be easely implemented
so
why not give it a chance and try how it works. If you have objections to
it
and you thing you could give positive ideas on how to improve it maybe
the
correct place for this discussion is the spf mailing list.
--
Best regards ...
Does fuzzy logic tickle?
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Saez Padros http://www.ols.es
On-Line Services 2000 S.L. e-mail david@???
Pintor Vayreda 1 telf +34 902 50 29 75
08184 Palau-Solita i Plegamans movil +34 670 35 27 53
----------------------------------------------------------------
