On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Saturday 02 June 2007 12:27, Steve Atkins wrote: > > > So if the spec states "SSP clients must query for new RR first, then > > TXT" you wouldn't expect most receivers to comply with that? > > Eventually, if the new RR type gets some deployment.
Scott, Won't the ultimate impact be an increase in damage created by spam? Why double the amount of searches induced by this junk? Why not depend upon the existence of a specific MX records for those that care about either their policy or MX record being found? Those in trouble need to stop using a wildcard MX. Is that too painful? -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
