Eliot Lear wrote:
Patrik,
First, I appreciate that you and Dave are bringing data to the table.
However, in this case, it is not in dispute that queries are happening.
What *is* in dispute is whether there are answers. I must admit I am
having a difficult time understanding the logic, even so. The *hard*
part about this was supposed to be implementation of the record in the
application software. Can the shepherd answer this question:
* To what extent has that happened?
The easy part was supposed to be people actually using the SPF record,
once it was out there. And so your data doesn't indicate what sort of
answers you're getting.
Eliot, we will add SPF type support in our implementation once the
infrastructure is ready. For us, as a windows shop, namely Microsoft
DNS servers.
So the better question I believe would be:
If the DNS servers begin to support RFC 3597, would you add
or enable SPF type99 support? Would you support new RR types
based on this support presumption?
Of course, the existing base would be low or marginal simply because
for optimization and lower overhead reasons, it was not added or
disabled in existing packages.
But I believe the interest was and still is there to support in
general new RR types once the infrastructure is ready, especially in
the DNS community. The question to ask is if it is reasonable to
believe DNS servers will be improved to support this industry desire
or need. If not, then its reasonable to remove SPF type in RFC
4408bis, and for that matter, forget about all future new RR type
proposals. TXT will be the fast entry record of choice. All recent
mail related DNS protocols have been TXT, including the new DMARC and
I don't see that changing (the same folks are producing them).
--
HLS