https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6490
--- Comment #11 from [email protected] 2011-05-03 21:47:01 UTC --- > Lots and lots of people are using TXT RRs for SPF. Why should they change > when it works? Because loading of the TXT-RR for SPF data was a TEMPORARY measure (per RFC 4408) until SPF received its own RR-type, which happened 5 years ago. Five years is too long to be "temporary." At some point, SPF support for TXT-RRs will be removed, and they will have nothing working. As far as "upgrade or die" arguments go, have you noticed that some of the more popular web sites are now denying access to people using MSIE 6 on the grounds that it's obsolete software? However, it's NOT the same with SPF, as RFC 4408 itself indicated the "temporary" status for TXT-RR from the very beginning. The only thing the RFC didn't include is an actual schedule. However, all of that doesn't matter to this patch, as the Mail::SPF module deals with TXT-RR support (as well as SPF-RR support) and we need not do anything special in SA. What matters is the additional condition this patch returns for SA evaluation. Lastly, the errata to RFC 5451 changed the "hardfail" result to "fail" (for RFC 4408 consistency)- but I wrote the patch to handle either. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
