spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2005-08-11 11:00:57
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Florian Weimer wrote:
* Daniel Taylor:


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


On the contrary, since you have an example of something which
does not require a change in the SPF record it can be converted
into a positive example of how to write a DNS lag tolerant SPF
record.


The DNS record is tolerant to one particular change, not necessary to
all changes. 8-)

And the SPF/TXT consistency issue also raised by Mark remains.

I think the bast way to deal with the SPF/TXT consistency issue is
at the implementation level by taking first available of SPF then TXT.

Since SPF has been issued an official RR the spec should reflect this
and give the official RR precedence. Interpretation of TXT spf records
should be explicitly left in for compatibility with DNS servers and spf
checkers that aren't in compliance with the latest spec. For this
reason, it may be desirable or even necessary for a domain owner to
publish a "bug compatible" TXT spf record while having a spec compliant
SPF record.

- --
Daniel Taylor          VP Operations            Vocal Laboratories, Inc.
dtaylor(_at_)vocalabs(_dot_)com   http://www.vocalabs.com/        
(952)941-6580x203
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC+5JZ8/QSptFdBtURAtSKAJ9sPBpERo787ZWrrnZgUvXlkzYh3wCfXLU/
UJ+Th626BSWlYv5T+EFZbGs=
=Veev
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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