----- Original Message -----
From: "David MacQuigg" <dmquigg-spf(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com>
Newsgroups: spf.-.sender.policy.framework.discussion
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 9:20 PM
Subject: [spf-discuss] New DNS Record Types - was HELO versus MAILFROM
results
At 05:42 PM 5/4/2005 -0400, Radu Hociung wrote:
In a way, if it is a duplicate of TXT, there's no point spending the
effort to create a new RR.
I did some research on the choice between defining a new record type vs
using a TXT record in a subdomain like _spf.example.com. There have been
far too many vague statements about this topic, and it is difficult to get
definite answers. If anyone has some solid info, I would sure appreciate
seeing it. Apparently, it's a hot-potato topic. I have a private
communication with one of the "DNS folks", but he was not willing to
discuss it in the mailing list, for fear of starting a flame war.
So why even bring it up? Does this brief mentioning legitimizes the
useless outline you presented? It is obvious what your agenda is.
Nonetheless, you missed the biggest "hot pootaatoe" of them all - Microsoft.
I don't recall the engineering specifics but there is a limitation with
Microsoft's current Active Directory DNS "stuff" would of had problems with
specific DNS binary record types.
Now, this might not be an issue today, nearly a year later. But from what I
understood, the Microsoft DNS server would require a major upgrade across
the market in order to support binary SPF/SenderID records.
This alone made any talk of a binary type a show stopper as far as SPF and
her clones were concerned.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com