Hello! Am 10.11.04 schrieb Jeroen Massar:
> $ dig +short aol.com txt > ?all > $ dig +short gmail.com txt > ?all "SPF queries that do not match any other mechanism will return "neutral". Messages that are not sent from an approved server should still be accepted as if the SPF record did not exist." > $ dig +short msn.com txt > ~all > > $ dig +short hotmail.com txt > ~all "SPF queries that do not match any other mechanism will return "softfail". Messages that are not sent from an approved server should still be accepted but may be subjected to greater scrutiny." Both, ?all and ~all means the same as no SPF-Record. Is it worth to enter such a bullshit into a DNS? Is it a good advertising for SPF to show such records? I think not. Beat providing SPF records with a -all option. -- Beat Rubischon \|/ See http://www.rubis.ch/~beat/ for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ( 0^0 ) snail- & e-mail, phone, fax & PGP ---------------oOO--(_)--OOo---------------------------------- # wigwam.lugs.ch, Linux 2.4.27-rc5, up 95 days, 13:41, load: 0.16 _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.init7.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
