-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Seth Goodman wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Frank Ellermann wrote:
I've no clue how Stuart has implemented his tolerance for broken
name servers. My naive approach would be take whatever I get first
(after two queries) as the "real" reply, not waiting for a "better"
or conflicting second reply.
This isn't a good approach if your objective is discovering data.
"Place 1 says no-data-here, so let's not wait what place 2 says.
We'll just assume there's no data at all." Sorry, it doesn't make
any sense.
I tend to agree. Querying for two records should mean waiting for both
results. If you only query for one record, getting back an empty record
is a definitive answer and a DNS error is obviously temperror. The fact
that reasonable people have rather different opinions as to what is
definitive when you query for two similar but distinct records shows why
this is not such a great idea.
That's not exactly what I said.
If you queried for both the SPF and TXT types and received a "v=spf1 ..."
record of either type early (i.e. before the other query returns with
whatever status), it may be a legitimate approach to take that SPF record
and use it, forgetting about the other query.
However if the SPF query returns first with no error and includes no
"v=spf1 ..." records, you shouldn't just forget about the TXT query and
assume there aren't going to be any TXT-type "v=spf1" records either.
You need to differentiate. Sometimes you can use the first answer you get
and forget about the other query. Sometimes you can't.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFp/SNwL7PKlBZWjsRAvztAKDQfj8b17ijYjaYICBdAJ0rFnfYywCeII/c
YgoBVeDh97RcUoV9fH6p7Cw=
=wI+W
-----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