spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed.

2005-08-11 07:18:13
-----Original Message-----
From: Florian Weimer [mailto:fw(_at_)deneb(_dot_)enyo(_dot_)de]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 10:13 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's:
Simultaneity is not guaranteed.


* Scott Kitterman:

Interesting.  One quick comment for you...

enyo.de.         3600  IN TXT  ("v=spf1 a:212.9.189.167 "
                                "a:212.9.189.169 -all")

won't give you what you want.  The 'a' mechanism takes a domain name
arguement, not a IP address.

Oops, thanks.  These bugs should be fixed.

Why not just activate the new IP, add a second A record for
mail.enyo.de and then delete the first one after you are sure that
TTLs have expired?

Yes, my example misses the point.  I need something which actually
requires a change in the published SPF record.

OK.  This is a good discussion to have.

I'm not seeing your point yet, so let's try it again....

One other consideration is that while the spec says that TXT and SPF must be
identical, receivers are explicitly NOT required to check for this (and in
fact, as I think you are arguing it would be a bad idea).

The only applications that should check for congruence between SPF and TXT
would be validation and testing tools.

Maybe in the final RFC editor cleanup Wayne adds a note saying check_host()
SHOULD NOT check to see if they are identical?

Scott K


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