Re: More about the SPF RRTYPE

Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:

> > 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.
>
> TXT records with an _spf prefix is clearly a better approach than TXT
> records without this prefix. That does IMHO not mean it is also a
> better approach than using SPF RR. I am not necessarily saying the
> opposite is true either(!)

TXT-type with a name prefix is clearly better than SPF-type because the 
SPF type is still not as widely implemented as the TXT type, and the name 
prefix doesn't have significant disadvantages.  (All in the context of 
v=spf3, of course.  A prefix will never fly for v=spf1.)

> [...]
> Another important lesson learnt: It is good to have a major player
> supporting the protocol. But it has to be our protocol, not a
> derivative using the same encoding but with different semantics. I am
> not opposed to try again and integrate both experiments into one, but I
> do fear another episode of two slightly incompatible protocols where
> one ABuses the efforts of the other.

No one cares about RFC 4406 at this point.  I don't think anyone will make 
an effort to move that one to the Standards Track.  So no problem there.

-Julian