On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 06:53 +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: > In message <1369923655.1952.6.camel@jhorne.config>, John Horne writes: > > Hello, > > > > I noticed in the 9.3.3 announcement the following new SPF check: > > > > Adds a new configuration option, "check-spf"; valid values are > > "warn" (default) and "ignore". When set to "warn", checks SPF > > and TXT records in spf format, warning if either resource record > > type occurs without a corresponding record of the other resource > > record type. [RT #33355] > > > > I'm a bit curious about this because I thought that the SPF record type > > was being deprecated - section 3.1 of > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis/?include_text=1 > > > > If it is being deprecated, then checking for an SPF record and finding > > no corresponding TXT record makes sense, but finding a TXT record and > > warning that there is no SPF record would seem a little pointless. > > The draft has *not* been ietf last called. > Yup, I realise that this is just a draft and that things may well change.
> If the use of SPF for SPF is deprecated we will adjust the warning > but that has not happened yet. > Fair enough. > Current SPF libraries ask for SPF first then TXT so having a SPF > record reduces the query load. > I did not know that. Okay, so there is sense in adding the DNS SPF RR to a zone then. John. -- John Horne, Plymouth University, UK Tel: +44 (0)1752 587287 Fax: +44 (0)1752 587001 _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
