spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SPF v1 draft for review

2004-10-06 05:48:17
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