Hello, can I nitpick and ask what the point of this paragraph is?
If multiple explanation TXT records are returned, they are
concatenated in the order they were received. Use of multiple TXT
records is discouraged as DNS does not guarantee order.
I think if multiple TXT records are returned, all but the first should be
ignored.
The problem is that SPF is co-existing with other DNS records. If you
already have a TXT record for your domain for some reason (quite a few
domains do), then multiple TXT records are necessary.
Surely we don't want to encourage >64K of SPF data?
Actually, we don't want to encourage >512 bytes in the DNS response packet,
which is somewhere around 450 bytes of TXT records. Going over that
requires TCP, which may break some implementations, and uses up much more
resources.
-Scott
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
-------
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-02.9.4.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?¡