spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: DNSOP Agenda for San Diego (IETF 67)]

2006-10-31 13:56:46
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 10:42:14AM -0600, wayne wrote:


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.

I agree that encouraging the publication of TYPE99/SPF records is
probably useful, but I'm not at all convinced that checking for them
is a good idea.

Or, at least checking for both is probably a bad idea, especially if
you are doing those checks on include: mechanisms.  That just makes
the DoS problem worse, not better.

Why?

If a type99 SPF record is found, don't even start looking for TXT.

Until such time as there is a non-trivial number of TYPE99/SPF
records, I think that checking for them is at least mildly abusive.

But looking for SPF, which has its own record type, should cause
a transfer of all TXT records eventhough there is a type99 record
available?  I could argue that this would be mildly abusive.

What's the point in publishing type SPF if the majority of all
clients is going to fetch TXT records anyway?

Alex

-------
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>