[73047] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SPF again (Re: XO Mail engineers?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Aug 10 00:28:32 2004
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 10 Aug 2004 04:00:56 -0000."
<Pine.LNX.4.44.0408100347400.13677-100000@a.mx.ict1.everquick.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:27:54 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1143505876P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 04:00:56 -0000, "Edward B. Dreger" said:
> Without new code/libs to parse the TXT RR, SPF doesn't work. As
> long as new code is being written, it seems logical to have
> another RRTYPE assigned -- that's one less thing to change later.
On the other hand, having to deploy a new BIND that supports the presumably
newly-defined RR type just to publish an SPF record would almost certainly doom
it to near-zero deployment. Also, remember that if we find out that the format
was b0rked, publishing a new TXT is a lot easier than getting another version
of an SPF RR deployed....
Compare and contrast the uptake of SPF with DNSSEC :)
(Yes, I know there's *other* issues with deploying dnssec - but all those weird
RR's probably scare off a lot of people...)
--==_Exmh_1143505876P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFBGE7KcC3lWbTT17ARApkUAKCsCO9eHMG+UoyG4QAv+SnHSQqrnACdFGzt
H43HToThgvNqz7O0h7RKYeA=
=sgtn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1143505876P--
