-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
# By _whom_ may oversized records be ignored? By SPF clients?
# Or by DNS servers, too??
Wayne had already applied my suggested change (thanks!):
@@ -565,5 +574,5 @@
TXT records published at the domain name. Records that
are too long to fit in a single UDP packet MAY be
- - silently ignored.
+ silently ignored by SPF clients.
</t>
</section>
My diff comment ("# By _whom_...") was rhetoric. The original wording of
the paragraph was slightly ambiguous, and the point of my change
suggestion was simply to clarify that it is SPF clients that would ignore
oversized records (i.e. oversized DNS replies), not DNS servers (what you
called "SPF servers" somewhere IIRC). We are not in a position to give
instructions on the implementation or policy of DNS servers.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCfCGHwL7PKlBZWjsRAhoMAKDwqwDKYN9/m6QJQD80aIHVYhUkXACfUbiQ
TiHOWf1mbTYDGmQooqntnM4=
=yTh0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----