In article <[email protected]> you write: >Well, you'd be much better off with the more readable, and >equally maintainable: > > @ TXT ( "v=spf1" > " ip6:2001:4f8::/32" > " ip6:2001:559:8000::/48" > " ip4:149.20.56.0/24" > " ip4:24.104.150.0/24" > " ~all" ) > >With the qname changed to "@", since SPF clients do not prepend "_spf.", >and added "ip4:" and "ip6:" prefixes, AFAIK they're required.
Life is definitely easier when you read the spec and do what it says. >> but i'd like to be able to remove those \032 workarounds in ~10 years. A gratuitously incompatible change to a widely implented 25 year old protocol? I wouldn't hold my breath. R's, John _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
