New warning message...

Mark Andrews marka at
Wed Jul 24 22:18:04 UTC 2013

In message <20130724094623.GB12171 at>, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:39:53PM +0200,
>  Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uhlar at> 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).

Which was a total mis-reporting of facts at the time.  The current
libraries DO lookup SPF records and fall back to TXT records.  New
implementations use SPF records.

This was just a WG that was just plain impatient drawing wrong
conclusions by doing surveys.  Then deciding that the was a problem
when there wasn't one at all.  That over reacted and in doing so
created even more long term problems that can't correct themselves
over time.  Then didn't want to hear that they were impatient and
have overreacted.


> _______________________________________________
> Please visit to unsubscribe from this list
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users at
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at

More information about the bind-users mailing list