-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of David
Brodbeck
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 10:09 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: What to include...
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 02:56:07 -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote
Dale Ghent <daleg(_at_)elemental(_dot_)org>:
I would like to see a SPF RR just for the sake of not
overloading the
meaning of the TXT RR.
I concur, and have been saying the same thing for nearly
twelve months.
I recall there was an issue with the Windows DNS resolver
libraries being
hard-coded to only support the current RR types. Has this
been resolved somehow?
No, it has not.
But the issue is moot, based on the fact there will have to be a migration
period where both records
(TXT and dedicated RR) should be provided and systems can evolve to support the
new RR type but the
TXT would suffice in the interim.
This had been discussed at great length. The only "no consensus" part was
really which records
should be mandatory.
I think for terms in an experimental RFC the TXT *must* be mandatory, the
dedicated RR (if/when
assigned) be stated as "SHOULD publish if possible".
The non-experimental version of the RFC can deal with the final "when/how the
TXT record usage is
phased out".
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in
Atlanta features SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily
deactivate your subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com