On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 06:31:21PM +0100, jpinkerton wrote:
* one is more recent: the draft currenlty defines the new RR type by
saying "identical to TXT format". Some peope (like Mark Andrews, ISC,
one of the authors of BIND), felt that TXT format definition is not
clear enough (specially with the catenation of two strings). Most DNS
RR types have a clear structure (like the MX type, which has priority
and server name). SPF would be the only one with free form. [Because
SPF is a mini-language, it seems the only possible approach to me.]
It's never going to be anything other than free-form , imho. We can't
afford to nail it down too tightly in case someone comes up with a new idea
in 6 months. Record length limitation is probably a good thing as it will
stop spf getting so complicated that no-one uses it ;-)
There's one piece of structure we may want to consider: The version.
domain.tld 86400 IN SPF 1 mx -all
domain.tld 86400 IN SPF pra ?all
in stead of
domain.tld 86400 IN SPF v=spf1 mx -all
domain.tld 86400 IN SPF spf2.0/pra ?all
or something similar.
Presumably the new RR type will allow publishers to define a ttl for that
specific record? That's mighty useful when you're adjusting or moving
domains around.
Same as with any other record.
cheers,
Alex
--
I ask you to respect any "Reply-To" and "Mail-Follow-Up" headers. If
you reply to me off-list, you'd better tell me you're doing so. If
you don't, and if I reply to the list, that's your problem, not mine.