spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Why TXT zone record location for SPF and Sender ID data are domain default ( @ TXT "data") ?

2004-07-11 14:00:36
[Ralf Doeblitz]
[Andrew G. Tereschenko]

Ralf,

Thank you for your question.
I understand your argumentation against "spf" prefix. But this has
nothing
against prefixed values as whole.

ACK on that. But the same argument will be valid every valid hgostname. So
the domainname to be used for SPF information should not be a valid
hostname or at least not ione that could normally be used with a CNAME RR
(which is impossible for 2LDs as they require at least two NS RRs).

Not valid. As I've noted - Google agree with me this.
spfv1 are unique name to identify sub-domain related to SPFv1 TXT data.
This is reasonable limitation to not name your customs TXT (and CNAME)
records with spfv1

[...]
I agree with you that we need to reduce this conflict probability. How
about using "spfv1" prefix ?

As soon as you use the prefix for this kind of information, the same name
lends itself for an informational website. If you call something "FOO",
foo.example.net seems to be a logical place for infirmation about this
kind
of data. The only way to avoid this is IIMHO the use of non-hostname
domainnames for this kind of data.

IMHO, again wrong.
If you wanna name your host spfv1.example.net,  spfv1 _TXT_ record does not
prevent you from doing this.
Even more - you are free to recieve and send mail from spf1.example.net
domain name.
All checks will performed against  spfv1.spfv1.example.net and
spfv1.example.net _TXT_ records

[...]
This is perfect prefix - little, has a meaning SPF v 1, versioned (think
about future versions), while still legal for DNS (no "_").

The underscore ist perfectly valid for RRs in DNS, it is only forbidden
for
hostnames. And as we are using just TXT RRs ...

Okey. Okey. Put SPF TXT data in "_ep" subdomain.
My original question was why it's not in subdomain currently.
Read this email subject once more.
But I'm unsure if there no old and buggy DNS server that will be unable to
relay or answer your "_ep" queries.
As well if there is no buggy web-admin interfaces without "_" support.

I will defend prefixed SPF TXT records technology until somebody will
clearly show that there is real _technical_ problems with this.

There are no technical reasons. It is just a matter of admnistration and
acceptance. Many hosting services also provide DNS service. A growing
number supports user settable TXT RRs, but still many of them do not
support underscores in domainnames. Also some of them do not support
subdomains at all (just the plain 2LD and www.2LD). Unless these providers
can be convinced to enable their customers to set TXT RRs for arbitrary
domainnames, those customers would no be able to use SPF records for their
domains. And it would be very hard to convice those customers to change
their provider just to be able to publish SPF records when we have to
convince them to publish those records in the first place.

I'm totaly lost.
Are spfv1 record in following example sub-domain or simply a record in
domain ?

@24.odessa.ua
www  IN  A 127.0.0.1
spfv1  IN  TXT "data"
ftp      IN  A 127.0.0.2


IMHO it is iomportant to keep publishing SPF information simple for the
end
users if we want to get widespread acceptance among non-geeks.


It's simple.
If you simply do not wanna anything to change - this is totaly different.

As for simplisity:
A lot of users forgot that "http://";  letters usualy pronouced by space
aliens mean ;-)
They type only hostname in their latest version browsers.
Even more people forgot about "www" meaning in hostname.
They simply type "cnn.com" and expect to get some information using http
protocol from site that originaly (then internet was invented) was expected
to be named www.cnn.com.

Do you wish to keep this kind of simplicity ?
Instead of searching for "spf1.example.net" TXT record you wish everybody
search for "example.net"  ?
If so ? Why we need thouse .net /.com/.org lame names.
Let's everybody start using "I'm feeling Lucky" Google feature for "example"
word.

What kind of simplecity you wish ?
Do you wish all currently valid queries like "nslookup -q=any pobox.com.
ns1.rightbox.com." fail ?
Do you support traffic increase for others lucky servers who will fit in 512
bytes ?
Do you wish it will be impossible to create new versions of software to map
"spf1 TXT" into new binary format for reverse-MX (will invented during
future 5-10 years) ?
Do you wish it will be impossible to create new versions of software to
correctly support wildcards for "spfv1.*" ?
Do you wish current TXT records for RP to be merged with SPF data (see
http://tinyurl.com/22kof for a possible reason) ?

Have you tried to add current SPF record in you BIND confiration file ?
Do you think this is simple and error-prone ?

; All regular records are
www IN A 127.0.0.1
ftp IN A 127.0.0.2
; but current SPF must be
example.net. IN TXT "data'
; or
@              IN TXT "data"
; instead of proposed non-geek friendly
spfv1  IN TXT "data"

Do you wish some buggy web-interface prevent you from configuring TXT record
on domain level ?

If you call this simple - and this exactly that you wish - I will retire,
buy own chicken farm and will keep myself far away from CS/IT industry.

I'm tired to defend my opinion in this mail list.
I started to repeat/make circles.

I will create web-page with my opinion and arguments supporting it.
It's up to you to agree or nope.

--
Andriy G. Tereshchenko
TAG Software
Odessa, Ukraine
http://www.24.odessa.ua


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>