[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01.txt DNS comments

2005-06-02 09:21:39

Hello, all

I have posted some questions on the DNS Stuff forum about the SPF draft.

To view the thread go to:

Other remarks about section 3

v=spf1 is not conform RFC 1464 (this is about the TXT record not about the SPF 
record but as long they both MUST be identical)

RFC 1464 is not mentioned in the references
the quotes are NOT nessesary (AFAIK)

An SPF-compliant check SHOULD try to look up and use a record of the SPF type 
first, before falling back to the TXT type.  However, the client MAY also look 
up both types in parallel.
If, for a domain, both types are obtained but their contents do not match, the 
SPF client SHOULD return a "PermError" result.

The "PermError" rule is NOT mentioned in 4.5 Selecting records.
What to do if both rules are not identical but they both exclude or allow the 
domain in question?
Still the SPF client SHOULD return a "PermError" result?


There is a maximum of 64k length for a string in a TXT record but do you really 
think you need longer?
If you do then you have bad luck a TXT record allows only the same lenght.
And then you need multiple TXT records.
for the problems with that see

Excuses that I forgot to add a subject line to my last email.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>