Re: How to built an SPF record that is split in substrings?

--Roy Badami <roy(_at_)gnomon(_dot_)org(_dot_)uk> wrote:

> > > > > > "Meng" == Meng Weng Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:
>     Meng> Excellent point.  Proposed new text:
>
>     Meng>    Some nameservers may split the data in the TXT record
>     Meng> into multiple strings due to length limitations.  If the
>     Meng> single TXT record returned contains multiple strings, eg.
>     Meng> TXT "v=spf1 .... first" "second string..."  then an SPF
>     Meng> client MUST concatenate those strings without adding spaces:
>     Meng> "v=spf1 .... firstsecond string..."  to form the SPF record.
>
>     Meng> Does this make sense to people?
>
> I don't really like this text, because it puts too much emphasis on
> the (non-standard) behaviour of certain nameservers.  Its perfectly
> valid to explicitly list multiple strings.  The nameserver behaviour
> should be relegated to a footnote.
>
> How about this:
>
>     An SPF record MAY consist of a single TXT record with multiple
>     strings. If such an TXT record is encountered, then an SPF client
>     MUST concatenate those strings without adding spaces, eg
>         TXT "v=spf1 .... first" "second string..."
>     MUST be treated as equivalent to
>         TXT "v=spf1 .... firstsecond string..."
>
>     TXT records containing multiple strings are useful in order to
>     construct more complex SPF records which would otherwise exceed
>     the maximum length of a string within a TXT record.
>
>     Note: Many nameserver implementations will silently split long
>     strings in TXT records into several shorter strings.

I would also add a clarifying note that says "This does not apply to 
multiple TXT records but only to multiple sub-strings of the same record"

--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>