Re: Re: More about the SPF RRTYPE

On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Julian Mehnle <[email protected]> wrote:
> Frank Ellermann wrote:
>
>> [...] it is clearly something that should be addressed in 4408bis:
>>
>> Apparently nobody intends to eliminate the ugly TXT abuse in v=spf1,
>> because it's years too late to try it, or IOW, the wannabe-experiment
>> failed to fix this.
>>
>> Possible ways to improve that situation in 4408bis:
>>
>> 1 - try the SHOULD type 99 approach again, a PS could succeed where
>>     an "experiment" failed.
>> 2 - give up, note that TXT is ugly but can't be changed, and that
>>     now is the time to drop SPF type 99 for the purposes of v=spf1.
>> 3 - explain that practical EDNS0 limits could affect TXT where type
>>     99 still works, but that trying both queries simultaneously and
>>     pick the first answer is perfectly okay.
>>
>> I didn't look into RFC 4408 for some years, but IIRC (3) is allowed,
>> or isn't it?
>
> (3) is exactly what RFC 4408 already says.
>
> I don't see any benefit in changing that in 4408bis.
>
> I think RR type 99 won't be very useful in v=spf3 because using the TXT
> type with a name prefix (_spf) is clearly a better approach.
>
> -Julian
>
>
>

+1