--"william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net> wrote:
<plenty of good points snipped>
Why do I continue to hear MOST? Doesnt it seem like that if we do have a
even a few that will not be complaint and solution that will make such
problem disappear that it makes sense to use the solution?
I think we have a fundamental disagreement as to whether a problem really
exists. I still believe that SPF is an appropriate use of TXT records and
that we shouldn't have to hide our records behind a prefix. A prefix
*might* solve a problem we *might* someday have, but it *will* cause other
problems *now*.
Ultimately the real goal is to get an RR type for SPF allocated to us so
that we can phase out TXT, but for now, 1. I don't see any real conflict,
and 2. if a conflict situation does come up, there are other workarounds
that can be employed that are better (easier, cheaper) than prefixes.
Anyway... I think we can agree to disagree, and that there are other more
important issues for SPF. Folks who are interested in why prefixes were
considered and rejected in the early days of SPF pre-MARID, and again
during MARID, can browse the archives...
Thanks
gregc
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>