----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric S. Raymond" <esr(_at_)thyrsus(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: new RRtype may not be that hard
Michael R. Brumm <me(_at_)michaelbrumm(_dot_)com>:
I have thought the use of TXT was the biggest ugliness in SPF since day
one.
You'd rather have something that looks pretty than something that
works well across all platforms?
I see claiming a new RR as a slight incrase in short-term pain for a big
long-term gain. The draft Meng referenced is very clear about the
reasons.
If so, then lets just create our own "SPF" record. Sure, it will cause a
lot of server upgrades, client library changes, and other headaches, but a
TYPE#### record is just plain ugly! (tongue planted firmly in cheek)
In fact I think that's exactly what we *should* do.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
Agreed. There are other, usually local, uses for TXT that we don't want to
stomp on or displace with the SPF records. More global uses for TXT records
include IPSEC records. Conflicting with such records could be a problem for
a lot of the more technically savvy users.
But what's the potential timetable of getting a new record used and
implemented in the more common DNS servers?