----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Kitterman" <scott(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [spf-discuss] back to Reclassifying Sender ID and SPF as
Historic - was: New SPF Council
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:29:32 +0100 "Alex van den Bogaerdt"
What is essential is that SPF policies in TXT records go away, or at least
become obsolete. Checking for both RR's is a waste, keeping TXT and not
is not good either (TXT records are used for other purposes). That leaves
keeping SPF records and stop using SPF policies in TXT records.
Checking both RRs is a waste is right. When we did RFC 4408, the general
consenus was that type SPF would not get significant traction.
at that point in time: yes.
that's holding up well. I don't see why this will change no matter what
write in an RFC.
So far I've seen rehashes of the same discussions we had 3 or 4 years ago
about theoretical goodnes of a dedicated RR type. No one has yet
the question of how to do the transition. Vague assertions aren't going
I have addressed the issue. Briefly perhaps, but it is certainly not true
that it hasn't been addressed.
Using TXT is sometimes troublesome. This is even mentioned in the RFC. It is
my believe that the SPF RR was asked for to overcome this problem. I
(reluctantly) agreed that when the drafts were published, it was too soon to
require the use of SPF records instead of TXT records.
That was then. Now is now.
There is a resource record type, bind (and probably other DNS software as
well?) supports it, its handling is the same as you do with TXT records.
Provided that the software can handle it, domains can easily transition to
using SPF records when they need to. They need to be motivated to do so,
which is IMHO reached by declaring the use of TXT as obsolete
This message to the IETF is not a kind invitation move SPF onto the
standards track. It's an attempt to kill SPF and Sender ID both.
I disagree. The last paragraph basically asks us to resolve the conflict and
update the specifications -> spf should continue, but not in 4408.
I feel very strongly that we need to limit ourselves to fixing protocol
bugs right now. The only one I'm aware of is the treatment of all DNS
errors as temporary when some aren't.
I consider dealing with both TXT and SPF RR's a bug.
Let's deal with protocol enhancements later.
Agreed. But ditching TXT is not such an enhancement IMHO.
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com