--On 23 January 2009 21:35:22 -0500 Scott Kitterman <scott(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:29:53 -0600 Don Lee
<spfdiscuss(_at_)caution(_dot_)icompute(_dot_)com> wrote:
From my POV, we should push for the SPF RR, but recognize that the TXT
records are going to be required in any usable implementations for
a very long time.
What makes you think "very long time" will be less than forever?
Until a receiver can check just type SPF and not type TXT, there's a
substantial disadvantage for receivers to check both. Until receivers
check type SPF there's no motivation to go to the added trouble to
publish two sets of records.
Until someone figures out how to break this catch 22, type SPF deployment
will stay where it is, nil.
Scott K
What's required to persuade people to check SPF as well as TXT records is
for one or more significant email senders (or a lot of smaller ones) to
take a leadership role and publish only the SPF records. That leader could
be one of the large email service providers, or it could be a government
organisation.
But that probably won't happen until software exists to enable it. Any
tools for publication should provide SPF records by default and TXT records
as an option. Similarly, libraries for validating records should check SPF
by default, and TXT as an option.
The RFCs should be drafted accordingly. Nothing will be made non-compliant
as a result, but new tools, and new versions of existing tools, created by
people reading the RFC will encourage drift away from TXT and towards SPF.
So, I think this draft should say "SHOULD publish/check SPF" and "MAY
publish/check TXT" records.
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
x3148
-------------------------------------------
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