Subject: RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:32:43 -0700

>> wayne wrote:
>> I agree, MARID can't claim the TXT RR for it's own. 

Ok I tried, no cigar this time.

> Bob Atkinson wrote:
> Let's be clear; this is NOT the plan of record in the
> current draft. Rather, MARID is claiming the COMBINATION
> of a particular domain prefix and TXT as it's own.

For the record, which I support. Nevertheless, numerous posts have
highlighted the fact that this might not be "good enough" to go to PS
(compared to a solution that would use a new RR), so everything that
makes the TXT solution sexier is generally a good idea.

>> Wayne:
>> almost all domains have enough space left in the
>> 512B UDP DNS packet that you can add SPF records
>> without problems.

Obviously this applies to SFPID only if the SPFID record keeps a size
comparable to the SPF record.

Michel.

---

From: "Jon Kyme" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:01:21 +0100

> >> I agree, MARID can't claim the TXT RR for it's own. 

FWIW, there's been an interesting little thread on SPF problems caused by 
non-SPF stuff in TXT here:
http://archives.listbox.com/[email-masked]/200406/0697.html

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:21:54 -0500

> http://archives.listbox.com/[email-masked]/200406/0697.html

If you read that thread, you will find:

1) It is not clear *what* the cause of the problem is.  Despite my
   attempts, I have not been able to recreate the problem.

2) If anything, it appears that the problem was caused by *long* TXT
   records, rather than a conflict with another SPF record.

3) Out of spec implementations will always be a problem and has
   nothing to do with the theoretical nor practical use of TXT records
   by SPF.

-wayne

---

From: "Jon Kyme" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 15:33:52 +0100

> [email-masked] pointed out:

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to read into the future at the time... How
about "an unexplained problem with a SPF implementation using TXT". That OK
with you?

I do like the rapid deployment of "WORKS FOR ME". Squash those bugs! :-)