Yes, but it wouldn't surprise me if they adapted their existing architecture/code base.
Scott K Henrik Schack <[email protected]> wrote: >They seem to have moved on, I just found this article >http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2012/12/hotmail-moves-to-spf-authentication/ >I guess something needs a little tweaking in their setup ? > >Best regards >Henrik Schack > > > >On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Scott Kitterman ><[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hotmail's original (~2006) Sender ID implementation used an offline >DNS >> cache and would return temperror if your record was not already in >the >> cache. For small senders there was an address you could email to get >your >> record added to the cache. >> >> Perhaps they still are using such a design? >> >> Scott K >> >> Henrik Schack <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >Ahh it seems to be Hotmail being unable to retrieve our SPF record >:-( >> > >> >Best regards >> >Henrik Schack >> > >> > >> > >> >On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Henrik Schack <[email protected]> >> >wrote: >> > >> >> Hi >> >> I have seen a lot of SPF temperrors in my DMARC reports the last >few >> >days, >> >> Am I the only one with this problem ? Domain in question is tdc.dk >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Best regards >> >> Henrik Schack >> >> IT-specialist >> >> TDC A/S >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss >> >> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note >Well >> terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html) >> _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
