In <200701100542(_dot_)l0A5gqm13197(_at_)www(_dot_)watkins-home(_dot_)com>
"Guy" <spf(_at_)watkins-home(_dot_)com> writes:
Personally, I would have preferred that an SPF-compliant domain name MUST
have a TXT record and SHOULD have a SPF record. And when looking up you
must read TXT if SPF fails or returns NONE. The way RFC4408 reads I could
publish a TXT type and you could lookup only a SPF type, and we both would
be doing it correctly! Seems wrong.
There are people in the IETF, and elsewhere, that have delusions that
there will eventually be a migration from TXT to type99 records and
some day in the future, people will never have to bother with TXT SPF
records.
This was discussed during MARID. I didn't change it when I took over
editing the RFC.
If it was up to me, I would have done as you suggested. (Actually, I
would have gotten rid of type99 records all together, they just
complicate everything.)
-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/?list_id=735