On Saturday 26 July 2008 10:26, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The example in the man pages uses three domains, they could be replaced > > with example.com, example.net, and example.org to give a result that will > > never cause unexpected results if used on the net and which I believe > > will more clearly convey the intent of the example. > > SInce .tld (the tld used in the documentation) does not actually exist, > there is no potential for harm.
Unless of course they create such a TLD. There are currently plans in progress to allow organisations to register new TLDs. If the price was low enough I expect that tld. would be registered for the same reason as yoursite DOT com. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5576995&postID=7061400453092952166&isPopup=true Above is an example of a blog post that was changed after I pointed out their inadvertent advertising for yoursite. > RFC 2606 is an IETF BCP and not an actual > standard of any kind. The example in the man page is from the original > upstream documentation and has been distributed this way for years, > including being shipped with the Postfix source for several releases. I think that Debian packages should match Best Current Practice. > I don't think changing these would provide any meaningful benifit and would > create divergence from upstream. This topic recently came up on the IETF > main list in a slightly different context: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg51960.html That's an entirely different context. At least half that issue seems to be procedural and concerning whether the DISCUSS blocking mechanism is appropriate. Another thing is that they refer to examples that are 25 years old and which also use the arpa. TLD (which is controlled by some of the same people who are involved in writing RFCs - so they can make sure that there is no conflict). > If I were writing documenation from scratch, I might use such domains, but > I think that they are, if anything less clear than the current examples. With the helo-name of some.domain.tld it is not clear whether that maps to something like coker.com.au or something like mailwash7.pair.com. > > http://www.rfc.net/rfc3330.html > > > > Also the IP address 1.2.3.4 should not be used. I suggest using one of > > the private address ranges from RFC 3330 (10.0.0.0/8 is the most > > popular). > > RFC 3330 is informational and not a standard of any kind. Since the IP > addess used in the example does not and can not cause any network traffic > related to the IP number, I don't see any point in changing it. Using a > private address actually has potential for confusion here because people > new to SPF sometimes put their private addresses in their SPF records > thinking they need to do so. Using it in the example would re-inforce that > belief. If people are going to copy addresses from examples into their own records it is better that they be private addresses (which can be recognised and removed easily) than public addresses owned by someone else. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
