On Wed 01/May/2013 03:04:52 +0200 Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <517FF144(_dot_)5040600(_at_)tana(_dot_)it>, Alessandro Vesely
writes:
On Tue 30/Apr/2013 01:07:42 +0200 Mark Andrews wrote:
SPF is techically superior to TXT is lots of ways.
[...]
For TXT you need to lookup the existing RRset, extract
the v=spf1 record from it. You then need to create a
UPDATE message to delete just that record as well as add
the new TXT record. You then have to hope that no one
else is performing a simultaneous update as you may get
two TXT v=spf1 records in the RRset.
That's true, except that one has TXT records anyway.
nsupdate
update del example.com SPF
update add example.com 3600 SPF v=spf1 ....
send
[intricacies of doing so in the face of multiple TXT records elided]
Thanks for the examples.
I'm sure I could come up with a more compact way of identifying
a spf record but it wouldn't be needed if people published type
SPF.
You must mean "if people published SPF _only_".
What percentage of NS servers use dynamic updates primarily? (I only
happened to use nsupdate occasionally, e.g. to fix dhcp hiccups.)
Switching to fully dynamic management would be a major evolutionary
step for DNS, and it will certainly make the arguments for strong DNS
typing more stringent.