In <20061031160701(_dot_)GZ6130(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net> Alex
van den Bogaerdt <alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net> writes:
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)
No, those other protocols are *NOT* reasonable. They, like SPF, need
to be able to redirect to another record if the TXT record space at
the domain level gets congested. Protocols that require large TXT
records, such as domainkeys, need to put them at a subdomain level.
That is, instead of a TXT record at gmail.com, it needs to use
_domainkeys.gmail.com.
After 20 years of use, there appears to be only a few protocols that
use TXT records at the domain level. At the rate that the TXT space
is being used up, it will be many decades, if not a century, before
there is any sort of problem.
-wayne
-------
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