terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com wrote:
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.
The new draft says, "An SPF compliant domain name SHOULD have SPF records of
*both* RR types." (italics mine). I guess I should read the difference
between SHOULD and MUST here, then, to mean that you are actually allowed to
forego on publishing additional TXT records in the case where you already
published the new RR type.
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.
That sounds good to me.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx