Mark Lentczner wrote:
Thank you for your hard work. :)
Let me remind you that the intention of this draft is to codify the
common understanding,
Perhaps you could enlighten me on one thing, though, the new RR type:
3.1.1 RR Types
This document defines a new DNS RR type SPF, type code to be
determined. The format of this type is identical to the TXT RR
[RFC1035].
However, because there are a number of DNS server and resolver
implementations in common use that cannot handle new RR types, a
record can be published with type TXT.
An SPF compliant domain name SHOULD have SPF records of both RR
types. A compliant domain name MUST have a record of at least one
type. If a domain has records of both types, they MUST have
identical content.
An SPF compliant check SHOULD lookup both types.
If I read you correctly, you say, An SPF compliant domain name SHOULD have
SPF records of both RR types, but MUST at least have one, which can be of
type TXT, right? But, if an SPF compliant host SHOULD have SPF records of
both types, then what is the point of having a new RR type? (other than to
double the record, that is). If the TXT record remains a requirement, then
TXT remains just as "crowded" as before.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx