On Thursday, August 22, 2013 09:31:03 Mark Andrews wrote: > In message <0c3746c3-dac1-471f-bd07-8faf20481...@email.android.com>, Scott Kitterman writes: > > Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > > >In message <20130821214832.1c92538c0...@drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews > > > > > >writes: > > >> > It's primarily an issue for applications. To the DNS, it's exactly > > > > > >what it > > > > > >> > is, a TXT record. > > > > > >I can hand update of A and AAAA records to the machine. > > >I can hand update of MX records to the mail adminstrator. > > >I can hand update of SPF records to the mail adminstrator. > > >I can hand update of TXT records to ?????? > > > > No one because it has multiple uses. This is true whether SPF exists or > > not. SPF use of RRTYPE TXT for SPF records mak es that neither better > > nor worse. > > > > You could publish: > > > > example.com IN TXT v=spf1 redirect=_spf.example.com > > _spf.example. com IN TXT v=spf1 [actual content here] > > > > Then delegate _spf.example.com to the mail administrator. Problem solved. > > No, it is NOT solved. You have to trust *everyone* with the ability > to update TXT not to remove / alter that record. You can't give someone > you don't trust the ability to update TXT. > > With a published SPF record and SPF lookup first stopping on success > or lookup failure (SERVFAIL) you can give update control of TXT to > someone you don't trust enough to not remove / alter the SPF TXT > record. > > You keep telling us the TXT is just another record in the DNS. Well > the DNS is managed at the granuality of the TYPE. 4408bis is forcing > sub-type management to be developed and deployed to maintain the > status quo. TXT is no longer "just another record in the DNS" with > 4408bis as it currently stands. > > And to Google your motto is "Do No Evil". Publishing a TXT SPF record > without publish a SPF SPF record is "Evil" as it encourages other to > do the same.
Your goal seems to be pretty much the opposite of the task the working group was given. You say so even more clearly here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03948.html Unless you come with something new, I think I'm done. Scott K
