Re: Re: More about the SPF RRTYPE

On Thursday, August 18, 2011 01:31:38 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alex van den Bogaerdt [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 7:19 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: More about the SPF RRTYPE
> > 
> > > 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(!)
> 
> I think a lot of people would be happy if SPFbis said to use an "_spf" TXT
> record, and the various open source and commercial implementations evolved
> to comply.  People could leave SPF TXT records in the current location for
> transition purposes as long as they like, but we should explicitly
> deprecate that practice and encourage the new one.

I'm against any gratuitous incompatibilities.  I'm not aware of any actual 
problems caused by the current TXT usage in SPF.  The _spf approach would make 
wild carding impossible (_spf.*.exmple.com), but I'm not sure I really care.  
Someone may.

I think for 4408bis saying SHOULD NOT Type SPF (99), SHOULD TXT, MAY _spf TXT 
is reasonable.  Then in the next update Type SPF could be retired and if there 
is deployment, _spf could be preferred.

Scott K