Scott Kitterman wrote:
Hector Santos <hsantos(_at_)isdg(_dot_)net> wrote:
I should add:
5- Deprecate PTR by removing PTR publishing support
We won't advocate this because for our small to mid size market, this
is the lowest cost setup for them - using a PTR. For all our domains,
we use PTR as well. No need to change it. This is one of those "Set
it and Forget it" SPF record setups. Using the PTR was the default
arrangement for most small/mid operations provided by most if not all
the SPF Web Wizards. This was removed in Scott's popular SPF wizard
but not in other SPF wizards. Note: The overhead concerns are passe
with the trend of SMTP receivers doing PTR lookups, thus any
transaction SPF validator will not contribute to any PTR network
overhead.
That's not correct. PTR is not removed from the protocol, so
software support shouldn't change.
I believe I stated deprecate above which is the current draft
recommendations for not recommending PTR publishing in SPF records.
Is this still incorrect?
I don't run an SPF wizard.
I thought you managed this SPF wizard at http://openspf.org/tools ??
You don't? Ok I see it was taking down. Ok, sorry, well, you know what
I mean - it did have the PTR publishing as part of a natural default
setup and if not all the SPF wizards did as well. Is that not correct?
It's not just about overhead.
So why was PTR deprecated?
--
HLS
PS: I am not trying to change anything about the PTR 4408BIS status.
Just pointing out that a change was made that does touch base with
operations and thus not supporting (or delaying, forever) this part of
4408BIS is highly possible.