In message <20140605230244.5929.qm...@joyce.lan>, "John Levine" writes: > > In article <mailman.348.1401978387.26362.bind-us...@lists.isc.org> you write: > >Are SPF RR types finally dead or not? I've read through rfc7208 it appears > >that they are: > > They're dead as in nobody looks at them other than legacy software > that hasn't been updated. The SPF record was a screwup from beginning > to end. By the time 4408 came out, there was already a lot of running > SPF software using the badly designed TXT record. The mail community > never wanted the SPF record but it was added reluctantly to 4408 due > to filibustering by the DNS crowd. There was never a plausible > transition plan for publishing SPF records, and by the time 7208 came > out it was clearly time to put type 99 out of its misery.* > > It's extremely unlikely that the RRTYPE will ever be reused, so you > can publish them if you want, but don't expect anyone to pay attention > to them. Perhaps they can be reused for steganography. > > R's, > John
And there is no plan to transition from SPF back to TXT other than the exact same plan as there was to transition from TXT to SPF. i.e. publish a RFC and hope people follow it. It takes years to do transitions like this. TXT to SPF was actually ramping up but that is now water under the bridge. > * - Mark doubtless feels differently. > -- 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
