spf ent txt records.
nudgemac at fastmail.fm
Mon Mar 18 09:55:39 UTC 2013
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013, at 03:19 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
> > Vernon Schryver writes:
> > > > to laziness, DNS is not rocket science, I'm sure given ARM and
> > access to
> > > > google, a 13yo kid could get at least the "basics" right.
> > >
> > > Laziness?--nonsense. Postel's Law and simple logic predict the
> truth hurts eh.
> Didn't see your original post, viewed and had to reply via Marks.
> Seems your original scored 17 and was discarded
> Mark said:
> >The rational course would be to set a sunset date on TXT style spf
> >records. April 2016 looks like a good date. 10 years after RFC
> >4408 was published.
> I'd go along with that, if they can't get their act together within 3
> years, then that IS pure laziness.
Laziness can be not reading RFC6686 Appendix A: about how it is not
rational to keep SPF RRTYPE99 and how things got confusing in part
because of pressure from some DNS experts.
More information about the bind-users