On Wednesday, May 01, 2013 07:54:46 AM Mark Andrews wrote: > In message <51802793.3010003@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Crocker writes: > > On 4/30/2013 12:54 PM, David Conrad wrote: > > > On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>> What is the IETF-approved timeframe in which "the market" is allowed > > >>> to a > > > > ccept/reject a particular technology? > > > > >> I've no idea what the lower limit is or should be, but I'm quite sure > > >> that > > > > 7 years exceeds it by a very comfortable margin. > > > > > By that logic we should abandon IPv6, DNSSEC, EDNS0, etc. > > > > > > > > > > Gosh, David. I guess you win. > > When just about none of the documentation mentions the SPF record type > nor has examples with both SPF and TXT records it isn't the "market" > choosing. You can't choose of you really havn't been informed. I've run what I believe to be the most popular online SPF record validator since 2005. You'll find it frequently linked to by other parties: http://kitterman.com/spf/validate.html The published SPF record validation part of the tool checks both for records of type TXT and of type SPF and mentions the absence of the type SPF record. It has done this since I first published the validator (in 2005 I believe, it may have been 2006). So it has been both supported and mentioned. The only real documentation, RFC 4408, mentions it effectively enough that some people were fooled into believing that publishing type SPF only would be a good idea, fortunately only a few were confused by the official documentation. Scott K