I think this is acceptable, until a new RR can be decided and published.
There aren't that many domains that have TXT records, anyway. Since
there are no standards on how to use TXT records, using some unambiguous
prefix like "v=spf1" seems like a good way to go.
-- 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 Don Koch
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 7:03 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Cc: aardvark(_at_)p-chan(_dot_)krl(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] primary lavel at top-level domain.com, not
_spf
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 07:03:59PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
|
| the latest version of the draft has:
|
| domain.com IN TXT "v=spf1..."
|
| with no prefix at all.
mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com said:
Oh, another good reason for the primary policy label to be domain.com
instead of _spf.domain.com: it makes things much easier for dyndns.com
and ultradns.com and so on to let customers configure their domains.
And a bad reason is that it adds noise for other programs to have to try
to interpret.
What if other systems were to add top level TXT records? Spf would have
to wade through all of those; so, why make everyone else have to wade
through spf records? Putting it in _spf.domain.com would limit its
scope for all parties concerned.
-d
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡