| From: | "Dan Langille" <dan(at)langille(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SPF Record ... |
| Date: | 2006-11-18 22:29:31 |
| Message-ID: | 455F42FB.20168.895738B@dan.langille.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
On 18 Nov 2006 at 13:09, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > > O.k. and is OpenSPF the definitive source for information on it?
> >
> > I do not know who is the definite source.
> >
> > > Honestly, the whole thing sounds pretty pointless at least at this
> > > juncture. I am not bashing the technology but I don't really see a
> > > reason for it.
> >
> > Good! Then you'd agree, there's no harm in publishing our SPF
> > records vis DNS and letting others use it.
>
> My only argument would be *if* there is additional administrative
> overhead. If not.. I a really don't care :). If Marc wants to use it,
> have at it.
It is a DNS record. It only requires updating if you substantially
change your existing MX strategy.
--
Dan Langille : Software Developer looking for work
my resume: http://www.freebsddiary.org/dan_langille.php
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-11-19 08:18:09 | Re: [CORE] SPF Record ... |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2006-11-18 21:24:50 | Re: [CORE] SPF Record ... |