Subject: [spfbis] DNS record _spf.example.com

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:43:32 +0000

I don't know if it has been discussed, but should we encourage the usage of

_spf.example.com to store the SPF TXT record?

Many other protocol use that notation. I know it is frown upon by the DNS people, but the adoption of the SPF record type has proven very slow, and we should avoid to overload the TXT result of the domain.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 06:58:51 -0700

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Franck Martin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Many other protocol use that notation. I know it is frown upon by the DNS
> people, but the adoption of the SPF record type has proven very slow, and we
> should avoid to overload the TXT result of the domain.

The best we could do is say "If you don't find an SPF TXT record at
the domain, check there" which would double the traffic for every
message received that's not publishing a policy at the base domain.

I believe such a change violates our charter, unless there's evidence
that lots of people are doing this already.  And I'm certain the DNS
people would hate on it.

-MSK

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 07:50:29 -0700

> that lots of people are doing this already.  And I'm certain the DNS

The concerns for TXT RR collision would disappear, if a ._spf naming
convention had been specified.  But it wasn't.

And by my reading of the charter, adding that convention is /very/ far
outside our current charter.  I also think that migrating the installed
base would be extremely difficult, at this point.

d/

-- 
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:58:54 +0200

On Thu 30/Aug/2012 15:43:32 +0200 Franck Martin wrote:
> Many other protocol use that notation. I know it is frown upon by the
> DNS people, but the adoption of the SPF record type has proven very
> slow, and we should avoid to overload the TXT result of the domain.

+1, it is exemplified as the target for "redirect".  I guess it is not
shown for "include" because that example has two such mechanisms, and
adding "_spf." (5 chars) twice wouldn't fit on a single line.