Thanks for the link. It is an amusing read. I had no idea the SPF record was so contentious. _________________________________________________________ Nicholas Miller, OIT, University of Colorado at Boulder
On Jun 5, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Kevin Darcy <k...@chrysler.com> wrote: > On 6/5/2014 10:34 AM, Mike Hoskins (michoski) wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Nicholas F Miller <nicholas.mil...@colorado.edu> >> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 at 10:25 AM >> To: "bind-users@lists.isc.org" <bind-users@lists.isc.org> >> Subject: SPF RR type >> >>> Are SPF RR types finally dead or not? I¹ve read through rfc7208 it >>> appears that they are: >>> >>> "SPF records MUST be published as a DNS TXT (type 16) Resource Record >>> (RR) [RFC1035] only. The character content of the record is encoded >>> as [US-ASCII]. Use of alternative DNS RR types was supported in >>> SPF's experimental phase but has been discontinued." >>> >>> ...but to confuse the issue rfc7208 goes on to say: >>> >>> "If a future update to SPF were developed that did not >>> reuse existing SPF records, it could use the SPF RR type. SPF's use >>> of the TXT RR type for structured data should in no way be taken as >>> precedent for future protocol designers.² >>> >>> Bind-9.10.0-P1 still reports errors if you don¹t have SPF RRs defined >>> with the SPF TXT records or are not using 'check-spf ignore¹. Should one >>> keep existing SPF RRs or remove them? Will future versions of bind stop >>> reporting errors when SPF RRs don¹t exist? >> RFC 7208 is dated April 2014... Even if/when BIND stops complaining, how >> long will it take for the Internet to align with the new standard? :-) >> >> Look how long BCP38's existed and how many networks don't align despite >> obvious benefits to the Internet at large. I know it's a different ball >> of wax...but only kinda. >> >> During such transitional periods, I suggest maintaing the old form for at >> least awhile (probably a couple years) to give the world time to update >> its configuration. There used to be quite a few major mail providers who >> would bounce or at least flag as spam any mail from hosts not represented >> in the domain's SPF TXT record...so the choice of when to change depends >> on how much you care (or your users will complain) about misbehaved mail >> delivery. > > Given the heated and bitter debates over the SPF record type (see > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/maillist.html, > search "SPF", around August of last year), I'm thinking that "a couple > years" probably translates into "indefinitely" or even "never". > > Some people seem to think the role of the IETF is merely to passively > document terrible designs and/or implementations... > > - Kevin > _______________________________________________ > Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe > from this list > > bind-users mailing list > bind-users@lists.isc.org > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users