On Jul 24, 2013, at 4:48 AM, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:39:53PM +0200, > Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> wrote > a message of 28 lines which said: > >> This was discussed here already, [...] >> The SPF RR is already >> here and is preferred over TXT that is generik RR type, unlike SPF. > > Whether you love or > despise SPF, the facts (RFC 6686, sections 5 and 6) are that the "SPF" > record (type 99) is not used at all And so, to speed adoption of the SPF RR type, ISC is prompting admins to go back and look at their settings so that they can migrate. If a critical mass of admins publish SPF RR types, then the results of the experiment documented in rfc 6686 would be vastly different if repeated. SPF RR types are already standards track - see RFC 6652. An informational rfc warning that the standard is not being adopted should be seen as a call to fix the admins, not discard the standard. _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
