SPF RR type
sm at resistor.net
Thu Jun 5 16:42:04 UTC 2014
At 07:25 05-06-2014, Nicholas F Miller wrote:
>Are SPF RR types finally dead or not? I've read through rfc7208 it
>appears that they are:
> "SPF records MUST be published as a DNS TXT (type 16) Resource Record
> (RR) [RFC1035] only. The character content of the record is encoded
> as [US-ASCII]. Use of alternative DNS RR types was supported in
> SPF's experimental phase but has been discontinued."
>...but to confuse the issue rfc7208 goes on to say:
> "If a future update to SPF were developed that did not
> reuse existing SPF records, it could use the SPF RR type. SPF's use
> of the TXT RR type for structured data should in no way be taken as
> precedent for future protocol designers."
>Bind-9.10.0-P1 still reports errors if you don't have SPF RRs
>defined with the SPF TXT records or are not using 'check-spf
>ignore'. Should one keep existing SPF RRs or remove
The SPF RR is no longer used for SPF verification (re. RFC
7208). The second part of the quoted text is there so that the usage
of the TXT RR in that RFC is not used as a precedent.
More information about the bind-users