On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:29:32 +0100 "Alex van den Bogaerdt"
<alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net> wrote:
...
What is essential is that SPF policies in TXT records go away, or at least
become obsolete. Checking for both RR's is a waste, keeping TXT and not
SPF
is not good either (TXT records are used for other purposes). That leaves
keeping SPF records and stop using SPF policies in TXT records.
...
Checking both RRs is a waste is right. When we did RFC 4408, the general
consenus was that type SPF would not get significant traction. So far
that's holding up well. I don't see why this will change no matter what we
write in an RFC.
So far I've seen rehashes of the same discussions we had 3 or 4 years ago
about theoretical goodnes of a dedicated RR type. No one has yet addressed
the question of how to do the transition. Vague assertions aren't going to
get it.
This message to the IETF is not a kind invitation move SPF onto the
standards track. It's an attempt to kill SPF and Sender ID both.
I feel very strongly that we need to limit ourselves to fixing protocol
bugs right now. The only one I'm aware of is the treatment of all DNS
errors as temporary when some aren't.
Let's deal with protocol enhancements later.
Scott K
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com