SPF on 9.4.1 now?
Mark_Andrews at isc.org
Mon May 21 14:36:43 UTC 2007
[J.D. Bronson: Can you please fix the nameserver for wixb.com so they
answer queries from anywhere in the world?]
> J.D. Bronson wrote:
> > It seems to me I recall 9.4.1 supports SPF directly within the zone?
> > If so, instead of using something like this:
> > TXT "v=spf1 mx ptr -all"
> > do we now also use:
> > SPF "v=spf1 mx ptr -all" ?
> > I cant find anything on this and google was usless...so I thought i
> > would ask right here..
> Yes. And the record format is identical to the TXT record format.
> Although, for now, you should put in both. Folks using older versions
> of various SPF validation software floating around do not yet lookup SPF
> (type 99) records, and this is further complicated by the fact that
> certain DNS implementations do not respond at all to a query for an SPF
> record type (again, of the type 99 variety), which causes a significant
> timeout issue. :-/
Which is a perfect reason to take the TXT records out. If
you keep the TXT record there then there in no incentive
to upgrade / fix broken software. People will be asking
in 10 years time "Do we still need the TXT spf record?"
We had people asking well into the current millennium if
you still need a A record for mail domain. We don't need
the same thing to happen for SPF.
It's much better to just use the new record only. SPF is
not critical. The lack of a TXT record just means that the
old clients can't validate. This won't break communication.
The legitimate email will still get through.
> Michael Milligan -> milli at acmeps.com
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews at isc.org
More information about the bind-users