On Sat, 25 Mar 2006, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 04:28:38AM -0800, william(at)elan.net wrote:
"." at the end of FQDN is common convention when entering FQDN name as
used by dnsadmins.
It isn't just a common convention:
RFC1034:
...
RFC1035:
...
All domains in SPF are absolute. I don't think we should make such
a potentially dangerous change at this point. However, if you
must, be sure that the spec says you MUST NOT or SHOULD NOT *publish*
records with a trailing dot, even if you allow the dot when parsing.
Otherwise the ensuing permerror chaos will kill the SPF installed base.
For pyspf, it will allow the dot in lax mode (used for screening email),
but complain in strict mode (used for validation).
The enusing transition from no dot to optional dot will be every bit as
long and ugly as the TXT to SPF RR transition. However, there is a
compelling reason for the latter (phase out temporary ad hoc use of TXT
RR). and what is the compelling reason for allowing an optional dot? To
use up more bytes in SPF records?
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------
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