On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 04:09:48PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Since there isn't a .132, .100, or .108 tld, a:69.64.33.132 a:66.98.160.100
a:64.202.160.108 will all return nxdomain.
In this case, I advised that they go complain to godaddy.com to fix their
record, but in the meantime, should all domains that have
include:godaddy.com in their SPF record be rejected?
I expect the problem to be fixed much sooner when that's done, yes.
The more people complain, the higher it will be on their priority
list. Right now just one customer complains and, as you pointed
out yourself, godaddy doesn't fix the problem.
If I thought people were rejecting on PermError/Unknown, then I'd have had
to advise him not to publish an SPF record until Godaddy gets themselves
fixed. That isn't going to help adoption.
Some implementations fix the error, some ignore the problematic
record altogether and return none/neutral, some discard the entire
included record, some skip just those non-existing TLDs.
Four different ways of working around the problem, all with good
intent and a world of confusion is born. How is that going to help SPF?
"550 Fix your problem" is clear.
Working around errors may seem to be the right thing but just isn't.
In the long run it ruins the protocol and before you know it there's
this bunch of windows weenies telling you their record is OK because
it works in internet explorer^W^Wsome implementation.
Alex