New warning message...
bortzmeyer at nic.fr
Wed Jul 24 09:46:24 UTC 2013
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:39:53PM +0200,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uhlar at fantomas.sk> wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
> This was discussed here already, and imho this is anti-spf bullshit
> like all those "spf breaks forwarding" FUD. The SPF RR is already
> here and is preferred over TXT that is generik RR type, unlike SPF.
I don't see any connection with anti-SPF stances. Whether you love or
despise SPF, the facts (RFC 6686, sections 5 and 6) are that the "SPF"
record (type 99) is not used at all and that the TXT record is now the
only one recommended (if you do SPF, which probably means you did not
believe the FUD).
More information about the bind-users