This is a discussion on Re: OT: DNS restrictions for a mail server - SpamAssassin ; McDonald, Dan a écrit : >>> On 22.10.08 15:49, mouss wrote: >>>> In my understanding, these are different concepts. In particular, RMX >>>> doesn't hijack the TXT record, which is one of the major sins of SPF. >>> Yes, but ...
McDonald, Dan a écrit :
>>> On 22.10.08 15:49, mouss wrote:
>>>> In my understanding, these are different concepts. In particular, RMX
>>>> doesn't hijack the TXT record, which is one of the major sins of SPF.
>>> Yes, but they both were designed to do the same work. SPF however can do
>>> more. TXT was used because nothing else could, at least I think so.
> RFC 4408, section 3.1.1, defines a new RR type for SPF.
yes, but my feeling is that it's too late. The purists are long gone
away. I think there were many tactical errors (SPF was presented as
"simple to implement" thanks to TXT, instead of "will help in this and
that. and for compatibility, we could use a TXT record...". other
tactical errors were "SPF will solve the spam problem" [and no, I am not
inventing that. search...] which appears to be one of the reasons why
outblaze removed their SPF records).
> But waiting for
> everyone in the world to upgrade their DNS resolver to handle the new RR
> type would have greatly slowed the adoption of SPF.
>> Maybe. but hijacking the TXT record got many people against SPF. and it
>> doesn't look like SPF is widespread. so the "compatibility"/-ease of
>> deployment argument didn't really catch.
> I'm not certain what you are talking about. SPF is very commonly
depends on how to quantify "widespread". I personally consider 12.6%
(after this many years) not to be "widespread", exceptionally since this
includes "corner cases" (cases when almost everybody agrees that SPF is
good for. This includes domains that never send mail, ... etc) as well
as "+all" records.
> See especially http://utility.nokia.net/~lars/meter/spf.html