On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
From our point of view, records returned but not starting with
"v=spf1 " or being exactly "v=spf1", are exactly the same as the
DNS answer "domain does exist, but no records of requested type"
(in other words: 0 answers). It doesn't matter if this is in the
SPF result set or the TXT result set.
Correct.
My opinion:
If the SPF type RR returns no SPF v=spf1 records, this MUST
mean the TXT type RR will also have no v=spf1 records.
Incorrect. Given inherit nature of inconsistancy in DNS its
possible that it might have v=spf1 record.
Plus you're also making an assumption about SPF protocol since
in the future where as its possible that changes to protocol
would be such that TXT v=spf1 records would be considered "absolute"
but still put in dns for the benefit of the systems using old
libraries.
Thus: SPF RR type "no SPF records" and TXT RR type "timeout"
means "None", not "TempError".
I'd consider either one to be ok for implimentation.
Similarly: TXT RR type "no SPF records" and SPF RR type
"timeout" means "None", not "TempError".
Again either can be either. The only important issue is
the answer from an implimentation should be the same for
both of these scenarios.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
-------
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