Re: TXT Records

Jasper Wallace wrote:
> Appoligies to Marc, i've been sitting on this for a while:
>
> http://pointless.net/~jasper/spf/
>
> As you can see, if a web based dns provider dosn't allow TXT records, they
> don't allow underscores either.
>
> If we do end up with a spf specific domain name it will have to also be a
> valid domain name.
I'm willing to bet that you could find web based dns providers that only 
allow A records, should we just reduce down the spf standard and say 
that it must work with only A records as well?
> The best i can come up with is 'spf-' and a string of random letters,
> interspaced with '-' - it's possible that someone is stashing binary data in
> domain names (random crypto keys?), but if they are they will be packing the
> info as densely as possible, so using '-' will (hopefully) avoid clashes.
>
> So i propose: 'spf-e-d-a-1-e-5-f-u' as the spf label, if we decide we need
> one.
What is that string hanging off the end there? I see your purpose for 
it, but what is that particular one?
> > When the SPF bandwagon starts to roll, and the small DNS providers start
> > to find that people are moving away from them due to their lack of TXT
> > records, then they will start to support them.
>
> Hopefully, yes.
The same forces moving the design in this way will force web based DNS 
providers to have a mechanism for publishing SPF records.
SPF must be written to drive the implementation, not the other way 
around. We must aim to have enough implementors and a good enough design 
so everyone else will change their implementation (upgrade software, 
switch providers, etc.) so that they can use it too.
--Jonathan Steinert

-------
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-02.6.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?¡