On Aug 24, 2004, at 4:51 PM, Mark Lentczner wrote:
On Aug 24, 2004, at 12:40 PM, Margaret Olson wrote:
As the spec is written, a new reader has to study carefully and work
this out for themselves. This is not helpful to the email community
and it will slow down adoption.
[ This is a little off-topic, but... ]
If you have a tighter, clearer and more concise way of saying what is
allowed and what must be done, then I'm all ears. I'm going to resist
adding paragraphs of explanation, best practices, expository examples
and helpful hints.
- Mark
Here are my suggested changes, working from Jim Lyon's simplification.
The goal is to both moving the world to the new resource record and to
allow everyone to be compliant in the very short term. I dislike the
idea of having a spec with which most people in fact won't be able to
comply. Coupled with the significant forgery/spam reduction incentive
of implementing Sender ID the current wording ultimately works against
the goals of the DNS folks by making a spec violation "standard
practice".
1. Publishers MUST publish using the new SPF2 record type.
Change this to SHOULD
2. Publishers MAY also publish using TXT records.
Leave as is
3. Consumers MUST do lookups using the new SPF2 record type.
Change this to SHOULD
4. Consumers MAY also do lookups using TXT records.
Leave as is
5. Consumers MAY do both lookups (3 and 4) in parallel.
Leave as is
6. If consumers receive records from both lookups, they SHOULD use
the SPF2 record and ignore the TXT record.
Change this to MUST, since we want the world to move to the SPF2 record
Margaret.