>> > Last month I ran into a guy on the dmarc list who complained that his
>> > server returns NOTIMP in response to queries for SPF records ("because
>> > it doesn't implement them") and clients were doing odd things. But
>> > it's been a long time since I've run into anyone else like that, so I
>> > agree, it's not an issue.
In case it wasn't clear, this is an authoritative server.
>A RFC 1035 recursive server should be able to handle SPF. It's
>just a opaque data blob to it with a name, type, class and ttl
>attributes.
Agreed. Other than a few dusty Suns still running obsolete BIND 4.x,
I don't know of any DNS caches that have problems with arbitrary RRs.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf