Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote:
> > >Am 10.03.2012 02:08, schrieb Nick Edwards: >>> thelounge.net. 86400 IN SPF "v=spf1 >ip4:91.118.73.15 >>> ip4:91.118.73.20 ip4:91.118.73.17 >>> ip4:91.118.73.6 ip4:91.118.73.32 ip4:91.118.73.38 ip4:91.118.73.30 >>> ip4:91.118.73.1 ip4:89.207.144.27 -all" >>> >>> thelounge.net. 86400 IN TXT "v=spf1 >ip4:91.118.73.15 >>> ip4:91.118.73.20 ip4:91.118.73.17 >>> ip4:91.118.73.6 ip4:91.118.73.32 ip4:91.118.73.38 ip4:91.118.73.30 >>> ip4:91.118.73.1 ip4:89.207.144.27 -all" >> >> yes but I also include 'mx' and I never use 'a' or ptr, they are >> IMHO too wide, BTW, I hope you also use spf2.0 settings as well, >makes >> it easier to get higher confidence level in sending to >> hotmail/live.com :-> > >no because i did not notice about spf2.0 until now >and do not find anything about it on openspf.org >http://www.openspf.org/SPF_Record_Syntax > >have you some good documentation/examples >since i am the developer of our admin-backends >it should be easy to integrate any record-types > I wouldn't worry too much about it. You won't find anything about it on openspf.org because it's is a Microsoft variant that has virtually no support in the open source world. There's an IETF working group in progress to move SPF, the openspf.org kind, onto its standards track (SPFbis). One probable outcome of this work is to deprecate the Microsoft variant. Scott K
