Michael R. Brumm wrote:
Obviously, the best technical solution would be a binary
representation in a newly allocated RR type. However, this is not a
practical solution for at least two more years. It really is too bad
that RFC 3597 did not come out much earlier.
Hadmut Danisch wrote:
Thank you very much for confirming this as the best technical solution.
This is exactly where all this discussion started, this is what RMX is.
RMX was and is a binary representation in a newly allocated RR type.
You are welcome. Now, if only we can concur on the fact that the best technical
solution is not viable for several years because most DNS libraries, clients,
sanitizers (firewalls, etc), and servers do not support unknown RR types.
SMTP authorization cannot wait for RFC 3597 to be widely deployed. People will
not wait this long. Spam is an ever increasing burden on everyone from the
postmaster down to the end-user. I'm sure I don't even have to mention this.
Hadmut Danisch wrote:
For the purpose of discussion, let's assume that your estimation about
two years is correct: RMX is almost two years old by now. SPF is a
little bit more than one year old. The SPF circus caused a severe
delay in the evolution of such a mechanism, a delay of about a year
right now. SPF was the idea to use plaintext in TXT records.
The "SPF circus" hasn't delayed the adoption of RFC 3597, and RMX has not
significantly increased the adoption rate of RFC 3597. In any case, the date of
RFC 3597 is "September 2003", which is less than 10 months ago. I don't see how
we can expect anything as incredibly large-scale as SMTP authorization to be
built on something that is so young and not widely implemented.
And now you say that the best technical solution would be a binary
representation in a newly allocated RR type, as RMX proposed from
the very beginning, but we can't do this anymore because we now lack
that time we've lost through the SPF circus proposing a different way
that you now consider as worse?
I don't see how we've lost any time to the "SPF circus". SPF and RMX haven't
affected RFC 3597 deployment; it's been the other way around. SPF is being
adopted and deployed precisely because it can be (right now) in TXT records,
while RMX was hindered due to its RR type requirement.
The fact that we have a working solution now (SPF syntax in TXT records)
doesn't prevent us from transitioning to an RR type in the future. I could be
wrong, but I think that most of the SPF community would expect that a new RR
type would eventually be allocated, and that use of the TXT record would be
depreciated. What we object to is the idea that a new RR type should be
immediately required and the TXT record immediately abandoned. This would
prevent further adoption, and disenfranchise the large base of early adopters.
Michael R. Brumm