IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] #9: RFC 4408 SPF RR type

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sun, 01 July 2012 04:58 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 0FC1621F853B for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 KFdMk61XQ9ox for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F05D21F8496 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbgo11 with SMTP id go11so6777968lbb.31 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=aJ4ehsTxdT+aSE3eVZkex0O4+DyYVx1R1i3sUaQJHsg=; b=i4/76DArgrK6bgoO6srIbR64dsw0kryc4HIvsur/1KrfM7ZHwjBKOF+CRiaWoxci6Z BC1KXe86b5tcrWv83n6G9tKOUpJW1I6kwN/J/xkEgvzjlU9krdEsVza9DrQ4upMwmzap MUGGZ7x32tAhLyVvNWWQ7YVxzovimyHkTgZ8zx9FuY9xq/f16q9pVsUkRmORDAWzHbyc dkm2XwTomjzSl/5Qgx4knhugZaDAd6gDeCBCnnMPYMcS4SBeB17USgfuhrem/rXMiDfq hPnuJUv1U0djKycvA7HXR3S9UKHmV7AFICEiJMtSvdiHn9CIo9AQjYSuIQXg5ahI9dyM vnVw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.112.233 with SMTP id it9mr7859016lab.40.1341118731207; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.3 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FEED3F3.7020900@tana.it>
References: <20120222193641.73783.qmail@joyce.lan> <4F4D31E9.2000601@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120629092333.08feed68@resistor.net> <1390536.tGbELFoml6@scott-latitude-e6320> <4FEED3F3.7020900@tana.it>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:58:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaoDL+BGsFKC6NfwOJPi=4qBwdwXqUruEDr9JbAFBaWow@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d040838d39342bc04c3bd89f4"
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spfbis] #9: RFC 4408 SPF RR type
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: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 04:58:52 -0000

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

> -02:
>  An SPF-compliant domain name MUST have SPF records of type TXT.  An
>  SPF-compliant domain name MUST NOT publish only records of type SPF.
>  If a domain has records of both types, they MUST have identical
>  content.
>
> I'd strike the second sentence, which merely repeats the first.  As
> this is a change, it might be worth to anticipate the lookup change
> from 4.4 instead, so as to convey the change more compactly:
>

+1.

NEW
>  An SPF-compliant domain name MUST have SPF records of type TXT, and
>  MAY have SPF records of type SPF.  If a domain has records of both
>  types, they SHOULD have identical content.  However, SPF-compliant
>  verifiers SHOULD query SPF records of type TXT only.
>

Given the conclusions of the experiment draft, why are we continuing to
even talk about the SPF RRTYPE?  I think 4408bis should drop it altogether.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email