spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] SPFv2.1: whether, why, and what?

2006-03-10 21:21:50
On 03/10/2006 23:09, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 03:07:23AM +0000, Julian Mehnle wrote:
  * Support both SPF (TYPE99) and TXT formats

Is this wise?  IMHO a new version of SPF should only use SPF records,
not TXT records.  Why do the extra work?

For backwards compatibility "v=spf1" records can also be found in TXT
record but only if no SPF (type99) record exists (v=spf2.1 or v=spf1).

  * Binary (compressed) RR format?

Now would be a good time to decide wether or not to accept both
text and binary (or even mixed? think include...).

I currently would opt for binary only but I may easely change my mind.

The SPF RFC already defines TYPE99 as a TXT format record, so if you want a 
binary record, then you would have to get another new RR Type, wouldn't you?

But I agree, TYPE99 only for the new version would be the goal.  I'd still 
allow for dual publication in TYPE99 and TXT because non-BIND resolvers are 
not all going to support TYPE99 for some time, but I don't think we should 
require it.

Scott K

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com