Why not use the SRV record? SRV is a generic service record. SRV was
intended for exactly these kinds of scenarios -- describing a new
service of some kind, without the need for partying on TXT record, and
without the need for an entirely new DNS record.
I HIGHLY recommend that the editors of the SPF / et al. proposals take a
look at using SRV records instead of the current _smtp_client hack.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2052.txt
-- arlie
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of Paul
Wouters
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 1:34 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Cc: pna.lists
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] new RR type
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
does using a new RRtype mean that nameservers everywhere must be
upgraded?
AFAIK, that's the whole point behind the new UNKNOWN record type. One
can make new record types.
Paul
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡