On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 23:59 +0200, Jonas Eckerman wrote: > Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > >> In my understanding, these are different concepts. In particular, RMX > >> doesn't hijack the TXT record, which is one of the major sins of SPF. > > > Yes, but they both were designed to do the same work. SPF however can do > > more. TXT was used because nothing else could, at least I think so. > > They could have used a prefix "host" to avoid hijacking the main > TXT record. (So you'd query the TXT record for > "__spf__.domain.tld" or something like that instead of the TXT > record for "domain.tld" when checking SPF.
Could of, but underscores are not a legal character in domain names. And now BIND 9.4 supports the SPF RR type, so we just have to wait a decade or two until everyone still running bind 4.0 has a chance to upgrade.... ;-) -- Daniel J McDonald, CCIE #2495, CISSP #78281, CNX Austin Energy http://www.austinenergy.com
