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