SPF again (Re: XO Mail engineers?)

Tue Aug 10 04:27:54 UTC 2004

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 04:00:56 -0000, "Edward B. Dreger" said:

> Without new code/libs to parse the TXT RR, SPF doesn't work.  As
> long as new code is being written, it seems logical to have
> another RRTYPE assigned -- that's one less thing to change later.

On the other hand, having to deploy a new BIND that supports the presumably
newly-defined RR type just to publish an SPF record would almost certainly doom
it to near-zero deployment.  Also, remember that if we find out that the format
was b0rked, publishing a new TXT is a lot easier than getting another version
of an SPF RR deployed....

Compare and contrast the uptake of SPF with DNSSEC :)

(Yes, I know there's *other* issues with deploying dnssec - but all those weird
RR's probably scare off a lot of people...)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20040810/451b6d2d/attachment.sig>