-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Daniel Taylor wrote:
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.
What a great idea! The SPF record could, for instance, have more PTR
mechs because the final spec doesn't count them. But then an implementation
would have to treat a TXT record slightly differently than a type99 SPF
record.
I don't think there is anything in the pre-spec records that a spec
compliant implementation would have trouble with. I could be wrong.
But being able to have a TXT spf record that is adjusted to account
for foibles of early implementations (like rejecting on ?, or over
counting ptr mechanisms), while having a stricter/more concise
SPF/type99 record that a compliant implementation can take seriously
could be very useful.
- --
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+57S8/QSptFdBtURApEAAJ4z2OzxCfwiCDfR4gNpgMLjQGS04gCeI3Id
5s4rag9LXc8yAA+dX6JaN/Y=
=9wym
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----