spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: SPF v1 draft for review

2004-10-06 05:59:19
-----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 Mark
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 8:48 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] SPF v1 draft for review


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?

To allow phase in of the new RR record type, yet still allowing DNS servers 
that don't support the
new RR type to participate.

(other than to
double the record, that is). If the TXT record remains a
requirement, then
TXT remains just as "crowded" as before.

No, because if you are a domain that actually uses TXT for something else, you 
*can* just publish
the new RR if you choose, allowing you to be SPF compliant, whilst not 
overloading your TXT result.

Perhaps the part:
   An SPF compliant check SHOULD lookup both types.

Should in fact read:
An SPF compliant check SHOULD use both RR types, starting with a lookup on the 
new RR type, and if
not found then proceed to lookup on the TXT RR type.

This is because:
1) since both records *must* be identical, you can stop the lookup once you 
find the first result
2) once we get a dedicated RR type, we would want to encourage its use to phase 
out TXT usage in the
long run.


Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085



- Mark

        System Administrator Asarian-host.org

---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx

-------
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