spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: DNS Query Format

2005-03-29 08:31:32
David MacQuigg wrote:
 
as usual I can understand only about 10% of what you write :>(

That special problem has at least two parts:  One part is that
I'm an "DNS-ignorant", the other part is that I want an RfC for
v=spf1 a.s.a.p.  All these permanent modifications like adding
zone-cut, removing zone-cut, use PRA instead of MAIL FROM,
don't use PRA, MAYbe test HELO, ignore HELO, SHOULD test HELO,
limit the processing time to at least 20 seconds, at most 20
seconds, at least 10 indirections, at most 10 indirectionss,
exactly 10 mechanisms, 10 queries, etc.

...all this infuriates me.  V=spf1 is supposed to be stable for
more than a year now.  I'm not interested in "new features", as
long as we don't have this one "really stable" RfC.  Even if it
is only "experimental".

In your case I felt that you insisted on going through a wall
(anything with DNS is a "wall" from my POV), where I could see
the SIQ-door, but couldn't explain the "wall"-part.  

Chris Haynes has now done it:  It's not a theoretical problem
with DNS, but "only" a practical problem with the deployment of
new uses of DNS queries for new RRs like the future SPF RR.

Back to square one:  Adding new features to DNS is no option
but a bad case of FUSSP - "when all DNS libraries, servers,
firewalls, and what else are updated".  Yes, then we could do
wonderful things.  We could even forget SPF and implement CSV.

But in practice that's not possible.  SPF has reasons to abuse
TXT "at the moment", and this moment will last for decades plus
the time wasted to get a RfC with the new SPF RR (without your
modified query),

It was a design decision to have a 1:1 correspondence between
the "old" TXT RR solution and the "new" SPF RR.  Maybe add an
optional "additional info section" with the IP to these queries
for v=spf6 or spf/6.0 later.

But please stay away from v=spf1 "as is" before we have some
kind of "official" RfC for v=spf1.  It's already hell to get
at least so far.  The very last v=spf1 needs now are some "new
features".  Let alone new features in its DNS layer.

                          Bye, Frank



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>