-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
wayne wrote:
The use of type99 SPF records must be optional, in order to maintain
backwards compatibility with existing implementations and
draft-mengwong-spf-0[01].
I had *hoped* that we had also made TXT records optional so that if
anyone is foolish enough to do it, they can insist on only checking
type99 records. I figured that would make the IETF DNS folks happy.
For the record, according to RFC 4408, checking the TXT type _is_ optional
(i.e. checking only SPF and not TXT is allowed).
This leads to the obvious problem: What to do if the results of only
checking one type of RR will be different than only checking the other
RR type?
My hope is we left that undefined, but I haven't reviewed RFC4408 to
make sure.
The problem with defining that is that the receiver by definition can never
know when this is the case. If they only check one type, how are they
supposed to know that checking the other type would have given a different
result?
Besides, I don't think this is a problem in such a generality as you
phrased it. The more important problem (as I discussed in my last mail in
this thread from 5 minutes ago) I think is what to do if both types are
queried but the DNS queries' statuses differ.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFpP8bwL7PKlBZWjsRAiv1AJ9Aqg95eatpUkLZczzp80FuoXFexQCePjpR
wkg6Skw05IEQ0dfylSmtC0s=
=+U9y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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