-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Wayne Schlitt wrote:
Devin Ganger wrote:
... TXT records vs. type99 records to be enough of a
distraction that it wasn't worth it. Many seemed to think that they
would be required to replace their DNS infrastructure.
Unfortunately, for companies that are heavily invested in MS products,
this may well be true. Not only would they need to replace lots of
their DNS infrastructure to support type99 records, but they may well
have to replace the OS on any machine that checks SPF records with a
non-MS operating system. This would include both mail servers and
desk top machines that do spam checking on the email client.
As soon as they let themselves recognize that they are tied to Microsoft's
DNS and mail servers not because of the technology's superiority but
because of Microsoft's status as a monopolist, they will be free.
Until then, I really don't feel obliged to restrain myself just to get the
400 lbs gorilla users aboard.
No, I'm not kidding.
I guess I don't understand why there's so much resistance to just
using TXT records.
I don't see "much resistance to just using TXT records". It works fine for
SPFv1. However, it's not "the clean solution" and should not be repeated
for SPFv3, given that most of the non-MS world is now slowly beginning to
catch up with the SPF RR type. When SPFv3 is ready in perhaps 18-24
months, it is likely to be supported _much_ better than today -- unless we
play satisfied with only the TXT type being used and don't do anything to
promote the SPF type.
In practice, the problems caused by using a new RR type far outweigh
the technically cleaner design.
Well, this is a structural problem mainly because of lazy players like MS.
As Frank pointed out, they won't be able to go on with being lazy for long
however, since other new RR types that cannot be ignored easily are coming
up on the horizon.
Actually, I think any implementation that supports type99 records in any
way by default is, at best, bad.
You shouldn't make statements in such generality unless you really mean it.
I think that pushing for the implementation of type99 records with
stuff like name servers and such would be very good. I can certainly
see that at some future date, a new version of SPF may support only
type99 records, and if we get stuff working now, this won't be a
For SPFv1, I think we shouldn't touch it.
Once again, this is a chicken/egg problem. DNS servers aren't going to
implement it if they think nobody is using it anyway. So we have to at
least _pretend_ that the SPF RR type is important, OK? ;-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735