On Monday, August 19, 2013 21:05:33 Måns Nilsson wrote: > Subject: Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy?Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard Date: Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 04:05:49PM -0000 Quoting John Levine (johnl@xxxxxxxxx): > > >* The charter disallows major protocol changes -- removing the SPF RR > > >type > > >is a direct charter violation; since SPF is being used on the Internet. > > >... > > > > Uh huh. > > Yes. The TXT specification is > > "TXT-DATA One or more <character-string>s. > > TXT RRs are used to hold descriptive text. The semantics of the text > depends on the domain where it is found." > > (RFC 1035 section 3.3.14.) > > There is nothing syntactially worng with those entries. I congratulate > people advocating SPF in TXT records while also writing parsers. I did check and the library I help maintain, pyspf, correctly didn't think any of the TXT records you have published are SPF records. It's not that hard. Operationally, there are far more problems associated with actually trying to use Type 99 than there are with SPF records in Type TXT. As Michael Hammer mentioned, we've been through all this before and people might want to review the previous WG discussion on the topic. Scott K