On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 10:57:55AM -0500, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
Limiting SPF traffic to UDP queries also caps the total bytes.
TXT "v=spf1 -all"
TXT "other protocol", total some 200 bytes (reasonable)
TXT "yet other protocol", total some 200 bytes (reasonable)
TXT "still other protocol", total some 200 bytes (reasonable)
together: > 611 bytes, which is more than 512, thus uses TCP.
And thus would result in 'None' for pyspf (unless a type99 was available)
- it would simply refuse to use TCP.
Let's face it. Waiting for the type99 record was good, but also
allowing txt records (and worse: promoting to use TXT records)
may have been a mistake.
I publish and check type99 records - and encourage others to do the same.
RFC lawyer question: 4408 says I SHOULD limit the size of DNS queries.
Fine - I do that. But what should the result be when the size is exceeded?
None? TempError?
--
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