In <200701122128(_dot_)46426(_dot_)julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> Julian Mehnle
<julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> writes:
Until then, I really don't feel obliged to restrain myself just to get the
400 lbs gorilla users aboard.
No, I'm not kidding.
ok. Well, in my role as an SPF promoter, I do feel obliged to try and
help as many people as I can.
In practice, the problems caused by using a new RR type far outweigh
the technically cleaner design.
Well, this is a structural problem mainly because of lazy players like MS.
As Frank pointed out, they won't be able to go on with being lazy for long
however, since other new RR types that cannot be ignored easily are coming
up on the horizon.
No it not just "lazy players". It takes time to move from IANA
allocation of new RR types until most implementations have been
updated and deployed, until books and other documentation are written
and understood, until GUIs and webforms are updated, etc.
Yeah, MS has an extra hurdle in that they use some sort of RPC to do
their DNS lookups in some situations and those need to be updated too,
but it there are a heck of a lot of DNS hosters that don't support TXT
records even though they have been defined for many years.
From what I can tell, NAPTR records really aren't used that much and
MS supports most other DNS records that are needed for IPv6, IPSec and
DNSSec. I can see MS adding support for things like NAPTR before they
add support for type99 SPF records since NAPTR records can't be
replaced by anything, but type99 records can be replaced by TXT
records just fine.
Actually, I think any implementation that supports type99 records in any
way by default is, at best, bad.
You shouldn't make statements in such generality unless you really mean it.
You are right, I should make statements like that unless I mean it.
Sadly, I do mean it. Checking type99 records, by default, just
increases processing time, bandwidth usage, DNS cache utilization,
error rates, etc. Until such time as there is a non-trivial number of
type99 records that are published and type99 records don't cause
timeouts, checking them is, at best, bad.
-wayne
-------
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