Chuck,
At 09:30 AM 9/24/2004, you wrote:
Koen Martens wrote:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 09:57:02PM -0700, Greg Connor wrote:
I agree, we should try to get an experimental RR type allocated for SPF.
So do I.
Another point regarding this, as Meng pointed out in irc, MS seems to be
claiming that using TXT records in DNS to fight forgery is their idea.
Therefore, moving forward with another record type might steer us
further away from disputed territory, if the patent gets approved.
This could be perceived as 'giving in', but I don't see what can be done
against it. However, getting the RR type for spf seems like a very good
idea, and from what I understood this won't be that much trouble.
So what _is_ the procedure, and who's going to carry it out?
I don't forsee anyone dropping support for TXT though. The RR type has
to be available for a long time (I would say at least a year) before
enough servers and clients support it. It would have to be a long-term
goal, but I still think it's a good goal.
Unfortunatelly, this could take a while for all systems to support it, if
ever.
Koen
I can see it now...
foo IN SPF 1.2.3.4
Respectfully, because of the remarkably flexible variants available in
today's SPF TXT based DNS records, would it not make more sense to continue
the extensibility of SPF via something more like:
foo IN SPF "ip4:1.2.3.4"
In this way, the flexible structure introduced in the current SPF TXT
implementation could be continued without taking on all other forms of the
TXT records that may also exist in a DNS zone file. By proceeding in this
way, the implementation would also allow for a simple transition from
today's DNS TXT based SPF records to any future RR SPF record.
--
Chuck Mead <csm(_at_)redhat(_dot_)com>
Instructor II (and resident Postfix bigot), GLS
Disclaimer: "It's Thursday and my name is Locutus of B0rk!"
Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
Best,
Alan Maitland
The Commerce Company - Making Commerce Simple(sm)
http://WWW.Commerco.Com/