On 5/18/2004 2:07 PM, Eric A. Hall sent forth electrons to convey:
There is no necessary or even good reason to use TXT RRs.
Having presented and seen presented several good reasons that went
*unchallenged*, I see little point continuing the conversation at this time.
On 5/18/2004 2:07 PM, Eric A. Hall sent forth electrons to convey:
On 5/18/2004 3:02 PM, Matthew Elvey wrote:
On 5/18/2004 10:05 AM, Eric A. Hall sent forth electrons to convey:
Take a look at RP which uses TXT RR targets that are sometimes bound
to the associated domain. Every other experimental use is equally
valid.
SPF works just fine with RP.
RP is more commonly defined a separate
type:
dig elvey.com RP returns
...
;; ANSWER SECTION: elvey.com.
7201 IN RP postmaster.elvey.com. .
...
See RFC 1183
<http://www.dns.net/dnsrd/rfc/#rfc1183>.
Even if dig elvey.com TXT is
correct for RP, this still isn't a problem. Say matthew.elvey.com were
my MARID-protected domain. Oh, no - I'm using 2 different experimental
TXT RRs. No problem - take a look.
Your example and understanding are both incorrect.
Amazing. You are so blinded (blindered?) you failed to notice the last
example from the RFC:
" RP gregh.sunset.umd.edu. .
In this example, the last RP RR for TRANTOR.UMD.EDU specifies a mailbox
(gregh.sunset.umd.edu),
but no associated TXT RR."
So my example and understanding are both correct.
It seems that your dislike of TXT use for MARID is based on faith, not science.
If TXT IS used, the text you snipped (re. magic numbers) explains why it's not
a problem.
Collision with other TXT RRs isn't a problem.
I couldn't extract any meaning from your response to this statement.
I've explained why it isn't a problem (magic numbers) and you haven't
addressed that explanation. I even provided a working toy example.
There is no necessary or even good reason to use TXT RRs.
There is no necessary or even good reason NOT to use TXT RRs.
Now I can say it with more authority, having had this discussion.
It's of minor benefit because of the efficiency it enables.
Snipped:
The typical SPF record is
30-something bytes, and any particular record does not need to be any
longer than that.
SPF doesn't require packets > 512B.