spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [spf-discuss] Re: Another test case for the test suite...

2007-01-12 13:25:00
Frank Ellermann <mailto:nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote on 
Friday,
[snip]
Sure.  Julian's last 2*2 table was fine, it favours backwards
compatibility wrt error conditions.  In essence it says "use the
TXT result for TempError if you query both SPF and TXT".

+1 from me, but does it conflict with 4408?  In addition, put something
on openspf.org to this effect:

"Domains can optionally query and publish type99 records to gain
experience with them.  This record type was created for both SPF and SID
to address potential problems with long TXT records in DNS.  Supporting
type99 records is not a requirement of either SPF or SID, and it will
likely not become one unless DNS software packages widely support this
record type."


Isn't the nub of the problem the requirement that the type99 and TXT
should be the same?  If the spec were changed to specify a precedence,
and put the burden back on the admin with "results are unpredictable
if they are both present and not the same....".

Would that slight de-coupling simplify things?

-dgl-

-------
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

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