spf ent txt records.
lists at hireahit.com
Mon Mar 18 22:11:28 UTC 2013
On 2013-03-17 22:35, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 3/17/2013 5:59 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> 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.
Unfortunately there's really no need to change behaviour even if we have
a sunset date. As a server operator, I'd still check both (because it
doesn't cost anything) and I'd still publish both because it simply
Sure, some might eventually move away from TXT records, and this would
(IMO) be a good thing, but still...
Perhaps DK/DKIM got it right here, _spf.example.com. TXT records would
be a lot more flexible, wouldn't overload a zone/host's TXT records and
wouldn't require everyone to upgrade DNS infrastructure to add support.
But water under the bridge, it's not like inventing another standard for
the majority to ignore would help at this point.
More information about the bind-users