Re: [apps-discuss] Updating the status of SPF

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:36 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Updating the status of SPF
> 
> This same attitude is why we still have A-record MX
> fallback all these years later.

This is the first time I've heard someone lament that old RFC974 provision.  I'll have to ask you to elaborate someday.

> But I do agree that, if people are wedded to using their bad idea
> forever, one isn't going to change their mind, and it is silly to have
> two mechanisms for achieving the same goal one of which is never used
> (particularly if it causes additional DNS load).

I'm viewing this more and more as something we should handle the same as a PS-DS promotion; do an interoperability report (in this case, about "the experiment"), remove unused stuff, generally tidy up, resolve errata, and allow nothing else.

That SPF used TXT the way it did may be unfortunate, but as you said, we're not going to change it.  We should document the discussion and the results of years of deployment, hold our noses and live with it.  I'd also be fine with including verbose admonitions to future protocol designers NOT to use this as an example of possible TXT use in future protocols.