SPF on 9.4.1 now?

Måns Nilsson mansaxel at kthnoc.net
Mon May 21 16:27:39 UTC 2007

--On tisdag, tisdag 22 maj 2007 00.36.43 +1000 Mark Andrews
<Mark_Andrews at isc.org> wrote:
> 	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?"

(I fully agree with Mark, btw)

Which is why my second biggest issue with SPF is the ugly TXT hack. Ideas
like that create hard-to-overcome ambivalence in the name/interpretation
space. If you ever, ever contemplate to use TXT records for anything
besides data that is going to be read by humans using dig or host, take
notice. You will do DNS a disservice. (The largest issue is that SPF in all
is a ugly and stupid layering violation, but that is well off-topic)

*steps of soap-box* 
MÃ¥ns Nilsson                     Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204   cell                       KTHNOC
+46 8 790 6518  office                  MN1334-RIPE

I want you to organize my PASTRY trays ... my TEA-TINS are gleaming in
formation like a ROW of DRUM MAJORETTES -- please don't be FURIOUS with
me --

More information about the bind-users mailing list