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

On 11/03/06, Alex van den Bogaerdt 
<alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:20:56PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > 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.
> Allow dual publication again and we have the same s**t as we have now.
> Either allow it and live with it forever, or do not allow it.  You can't
> allow it but aim for the opposite.
> Worst case is to allow but not require dual publication:
>
> a) publishes using TXT records only
> b) publishes using SPF records only
> c) publishes both
>
> A) only looks for TXT records
> B) only looks for SPF records
> C) looks for both types
>
> (A) has such an old, disfunctional, resolver.  (A) cannot look for (b)'s 
> records.
> Thus, (b) cannot exist.  Most people will be (a), not (c).  Much software will
> be of type (C).  Result: lots of wasted resources.
>
> IMO we should make the SPF record type mandatory or we should
> abandon it entirely (both for version>1 of course).
Don't forget to consider what the situation is today.

Not every domain owner runs their own DNS. Most registrars allow one
to publish TXT-records, not SPF. (And there are still some major
registrars that don't allow one to publish even TXT records, but
that's another problem.) If you are only going to support SPF records,
then many domain owners are out of luck with spf2.1.

Cheers,
Constantine.

-------
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