On 08/26/2013 04:49 PM, John R Levine wrote: > Sorry if that last one came across as dismissive. > >> Until such time, I'd personally prefer to see some explicit notion that >> the odd history of the SPF TXT record should not be seen as a precedent >> and best practice, rather than hope that this is implicit. > > I'd have thought that the debate here and elsewhere already documented > that. Since it's not specific to SPF, perhaps we could do a draft on > "overloaded TXT considered harmful" to get it into the RFC record. >
It certainly documents there are some persistent people walking around the dns world ;) That draft may not be a bad idea. Jelte
