In message <20130724094623.gb12...@nic.fr>, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes: > 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, and imho this is anti-spf bullshit > > like all those "spf breaks forwarding" FUD. The SPF RR is already > > here and is preferred over TXT that is generik RR type, unlike SPF. > > I don't see any connection with anti-SPF stances. 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 that the TXT record is now the > only one recommended (if you do SPF, which probably means you did not > believe the FUD).
Which was a total mis-reporting of facts at the time. The current libraries DO lookup SPF records and fall back to TXT records. New implementations use SPF records. This was just a WG that was just plain impatient drawing wrong conclusions by doing surveys. Then deciding that the was a problem when there wasn't one at all. That over reacted and in doing so created even more long term problems that can't correct themselves over time. Then didn't want to hear that they were impatient and have overreacted. Mark > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ 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
