Re: More about the SPF RRTYPE

Scott Kitterman wrote:

> 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 don't care about wildcarding either.  Wildcarding in general isn't too 
useful.  And there is no need to publish "v=spf1 -all" for non-existent 
domains.  Any sane MTAs will reject mail from NXDOMAIN anyway.

> 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.

"MAY _spf TXT" is hardly reasonable because that will mean receivers will 
have to include _spf TXT in their policy discovery, which at this point 
will effectively be even less useful than looking up SPF, so hardly 
anyone will do it.  Chicken/egg problem all over again.  Let's save that 
for v3.

-Julian