On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 09:03:26AM -0600, wayne wrote:
I think that pushing for the implementation of type99 records with
stuff like name servers and such would be very good. I can certainly
see that at some future date, a new version of SPF may support only
type99 records, and if we get stuff working now, this won't be a
problem.
For SPFv1, I think we shouldn't touch it.
In other words:
For SPFv1 (and 2.0) keep TXT as the primary RR to get things rolling,
but do encourage adopting SPF RR as well, so that there is no chicken
and egg problem when it's time for SPFv3.
Telling people there's no need to think about the SPF RR type, is
(IMnsHO) short sighted.
Now is the time to get hands on experience, with an easy fall back
mechanism (just remove the SPF RR record, and your TXT record will
be used again).
Indeed: *only* supporting the SPF RR type is, erm, not smart.
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/?list_id=735