Mailing List Archive

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Kitterman [mailto:scott@kitterman.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 6:49 AM
> To: spf-discuss@listbox.com
> Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: More about the SPF RRTYPE
>
> > Actually Scott could publish his draft "as is", changing the draft name
> > from I-D.xxx-kitterman-yyy or similar to I-D.4408bis-yyy in a 4408bis WG
> > later is common practice.
>
> Scott needs to find some time to beat it into a reasonably stable state
> first.

It might be possible to get the XML source for RFC4408 from the RFC Editor, if that's how it was submitted to them.

It can be tedious to take the text raw and put it into XML, but it has been done...


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ [http://www.listbox.com/member/]

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/1311532-17d8a1ba
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-f2ea6ed9
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-bdbb122a&post_id=20110821022035:AC1C75F6-CBBD-11E0-BEDF-B1C20A54EB8D
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011, Julian Mehnle wrote:

>> I think a lot of people would be happy if SPFbis said to use an "_spf"
>> TXT record, and the various open source and commercial implementations
>> evolved to comply. People could leave SPF TXT records in the current
>> location for transition purposes as long as they like, but we should
>> explicitly deprecate that practice and encourage the new one.
>
> This would abandon the entire deployed base and would also cause
> implementations to do *yet another* lookup for policy discovery (in
> addition to domain./TXT and possibly domain./SPF). I don't think there's
> any point in doing that for v=spf1.

+1

No point to yet another lookup for v=spf1. Save the type99 vs _spf debate
for v=spf3.

--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart@bmsi.com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ [http://www.listbox.com/member/]

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/1311532-17d8a1ba
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-f2ea6ed9
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-bdbb122a&post_id=20110821221131:0BC597AC-CC64-11E0-BA70-C8F7630C0076
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Sorry for the delay.

On 18/Aug/11 19:31, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> From: Alex van den Bogaerdt
>>
>> TXT records with an _spf prefix is clearly a better approach than TXT
>> records without this prefix.
>
> I think a lot of people would be happy if SPFbis said to use an
> "_spf" TXT record, and the various open source and commercial
> implementations evolved to comply. People could leave SPF TXT
> records in the current location for transition purposes as long as
> they like, but we should explicitly deprecate that practice and
> encourage the new one.

I agree with Julian that we shouldn't force receivers to do yet
another discovery query. (Rather, we should almost deprecate one.)
However, I have a couple of observations:

1. SPF deployment seems to leave something to be desired for
validating helo-names. Anything that allows to publish a single
record for all hosts should be taken into consideration.

2. There is a noticeable deployment of _spf.domain already. AFAIK,
it is used by large mailers for inclusion by their clients. We
should explore and possibly document such practice. Ideas?

>> The experiment could enter a new phase. There is no need for ASCII
>> characters in the SPF record. This means that for instance
>> "ip4:192.168.234.123" could be encoded in 5 octets instead of 19 plus 1
>> for a separating space. [...]
>
> Some of this stuff might fly, if we do indeed move the TXT record,
> but we'll also need to come up with tools that the average sysadmin
> can use to generate a TXT record in a BIND zone file that matches
> the new specification. The thought of doing this stuff in a
> conventional text editor will set a barrier to entry.

There's a draft for defining new types in /etc/rrtypes [L]. I propose
to postpone this discussion to when that language will be settled, so
that we can check whether it handles a binary type 99.

[L] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levine-dnsextlang

--


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ [http://www.listbox.com/member/]

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/1311532-17d8a1ba
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-f2ea6ed9
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-bdbb122a&post_id=20110824065222:2375D7CC-CE3F-11E0-B4ED-9C6F72024E6E
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com