On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:19:48AM +1100, geoffj wrote:
For all this, the answer to my original question is clear.
Admins are constructing TXT records for TXT lookup, and
patches are doing TXT lookups, not parsing MX for TXT
records. Not the way I would have done it perhaps, but
it's too late to argue otherwise.
Geoff, I think you're reading something that doesn't exist into how your DNS
works. In the example you gave below, the TXT record has no relationship to
the MX record that precedes it. It is queried and used separately, just as a
TXT record supplied anywhere else in the zone file would be. Even if it were
supplied as an Additional record (glue) with an MX query, the client would
still have to parse it as a TXT RR.
If I'm misreading what you're trying to say, please forgive me.
If you're saying that SPF data should somehow be encoded into the MX record,
there is no way to do that.
geoffj
--Meng Weng Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 05:09:45PM +1100, geoffj wrote:
| mx.example.com. A 10.9.8.7
| TXT "v=spf mx -all"
|
| Try any dns client seeking an MX record
| on 210.8.17.100 to see this. I know that MX lookups
| don't usually return TXT records, but there is no reason
| I suspect why they shouldn't, just as they usually return
| NS and A records. This is of course a redundancy which
| is intended to reduce lookups I take it. And the same
| might go for the spf TXT record perhaps.
--
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all
kinds of directions." -- Terry Pratchett
-------
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?¡