Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF?

On 9/20/2004 5:21 PM, Douglas Otis sent forth electrons to convey:

>On Mon, 2004-09-20 at 16:33, Matthew Elvey wrote:
>  
>
>>Here's the idea in a nutshell: CSV makes use of extant SPF records which 
>>already list tens of thousands of domains that are authorized for use in 
>>HELO.
>>
>>Who supports/opposes this change?
>>    
>>
>
>Ney.
>
>This is a repeat of an older debate. 
>
No, I'm making a different suggestion.  Please read the whole post!
I'm eliminating some or all of the records that you mention having a 
problem with below.

I should have stated one thing clearly: only +type components of records 
would be relevant; ~type and ?type would be ignored.

I registered your Nay on Jabber...

>SPF often requires a series of lookups to
>resolve an address list.  This list is often not fully defined as it is
>commonly intended to associate mailbox domains with a much larger set of
>MTA addresses.  It also may allow the EHLO domain to use SPF/Sender-ID
>records as a means to spoof, as these records are often open-ended. 
>
No open-ended records would be allowed.  I don't think the fact that, 
e.g. +0/0 is allowed is of much concern, as spammers have demonstrated 
they can create MARID records for their own domains quite well; A&R are 
required.

> The
>host name used within the EHLO domain will require a separate record
>anyway, so why not use a record that achieves an answer within a single
>lookup?  
>
We should, as my post makes clear.  But there are reported to be what, 
~300,000 SPF records?  Why not use them to the extent that I suggest?