IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic (was: WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14)

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Thu, 30 May 2013 01:30 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B940321F9193 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2013 18:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v8LZHSp75kvy for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2013 18:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F7521F9123 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2013 18:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B86E65F983B; Thu, 30 May 2013 01:30:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isc.org; s=dkim2012; t=1369877429; bh=TGIYAOAU9Q5TERBI9+bdCZtFNy2J8lqWauEQ2nQqAig=; h=To:Cc:From:References:Subject:In-reply-to:Date; b=uz/+rhJKXGkRoAl0eeM4gvKqkOC0be9MGWTRxj8Iz+D2aWNCqh2g/QQZdJ8PELJSE hOD6ceB9iYD2QnsMG59/0TtHQpGZmHYe6pUxBbFa/pmfg8v09WS4jh9jPbVRJ6kCmB fUBkWi7mFeCs/t9vCJVSqqLNDtdsZrnw1RpBAGFw=
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (c211-30-172-21.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.172.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F271F216C40; Thu, 30 May 2013 01:30:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ABE434E2004; Thu, 30 May 2013 11:30:17 +1000 (EST)
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <CAL0qLwan7JO4t2UB1uWYwwf1MmwhY56szenSY7awT_pNP5UjLg@mail.gmail.com> <B6A88D56-9318-40A3-8E0C-A49EE37A3F3F@gmail.com> <20130529143635.GZ23227@verdi> <CD0B53CE-E90E-4296-B724-0749361D7626@gmail.com> <20130529202145.GA9506@mx1.yitter.info> <20130529212602.5909734DBABF@drugs.dv.isc.org> <20130529214234.GB9584@mx1.yitter.info> <20130529220822.2326134DBF6E@drugs.dv.isc.org> <CAL0qLwa2Eh_tbSHCULhUGALf_hNOmOW01HA6pPgVPfDK2YMEhA@mail.gmail.com> <20130530003906.6983934DF471@drugs.dv.isc.org> <20130530011540.GE43673@mx1.yitter.info>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 May 2013 21:15:41 -0400." <20130530011540.GE43673@mx1.yitter.info>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 11:30:17 +1000
Message-Id: <20130530013017.2ABE434E2004@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic (was: WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14)
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 01:30:31 -0000

In message <20130530011540.GE43673@mx1.yitter.info>, Andrew Sullivan writes:
> No hat.
> 
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:39:05AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> > You have a DNS record with a mnemonic of SPF that is not to be used
> > for SPF.  What does the instruction "Put a SPF record in the DNS"
> > mean?  Will it result in a type 99 record being added?  How will
> > such errors be prevented?
> 
> Wouldn't it be good of name servers to detect someone attempting to
> serve a deprecated RRTYPE, and warn them of this?

Yes.

Note, I don't see how this is different to warning about a missing
SPF record which I'm sure if I go rummage about in the archives I
will find as being rejected as a part of the solution to the perceived
interoperability problem except you would never want to turn it
off.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email