william(at)elan.net wrote:
When publishing via TXT records, beware of other TXT records
published there for other purposes. They may cause problems with
size limits (see Section 3.1.4).
<<Seems soft, given the intense debate about SPF (re)use of TXT.
Perhaps: "respect other TXT records ...., and note that there may be
problems ..."
It seems disingenuous to suggest that it is the pre-existing records
which are causing the problem!>>
No such suggestion has been made! I could not properly parse what kind
of text changes you wanted to make here and at what point in the
paragraph.
Please do this proposal again, incorporating your changes in the text and
writing paragraph text with the changes.
I propose (affected text as << >>):
When publishing via TXT records, <<be careful to respect>> TXT records
<<already>> published there for other purposes, <<and note that there may be>>
problems with size limits (see Section 3.1.4).
I have in mind here the long debate we had over (re)using TXT (some SPF
detractors
said "abusing"). This paragraph should be careful not to present SPF TXT
as superior, or imply that previously existing TXT records can be trashed
to leave room for SPF. This issue stays alive, I sense, even though we
have 99 to solve these problems. My suggested redraft just tries to
soften the impression that our information is more important than anything
else which might be found in TXT already. It's still a nit, really,
but the SPF community has worked so hard to collaborate and to be good internet
citizens that we shouldn't let our drafting appear to reflect otherwise.
Cheers
Geoff
-------
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