On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:50:37 +0200 Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote:
> forgot to mention you should use BOTH types > TXT and SPF I did not even know that a SPF record type existed in DNS. At the homepage of SPF and other places I have read, it is indicated that SPF = TXT RR in DNS, but I may have read too little on the subject to notice. > The SPF RR is functionally identical to a TXT record with SPF data. > BIND 9.4+ supports the SPF RR type, however previous versions, and > most other DNS software (as of July 2007), do not yet support the SPF > RR type. Thus, the RFC's recommendation is to always provide a TXT > based SPF RR and, if your DNS software supports the SPF RR type, > duplicate the information from the TXT version of the SPF RR in a > native SPF RR. The reason for this procedure is simply because while > the master/slave DNS may support the SPF RR, querying name servers - > such as name servers used by receiving MTAs - may not. Some, but not > all, of the examples below have been updated to reflect the use of > both record types to illustrate usage. In all cases the TXT and SPF > RRs are shown with a comment line between containing the word AND as > a reminder of the current policy recommendation. It is safe to assume > for the foreseeable future that only using a TXT version of the SPF > will always work. This is a wealth of information and highly appreciated, thank you. At the moment my service provider does not support the usage of SPF records, so for the time being I will stick to TXT, and keep an eye out for SPF RR.
