Eliot Lear wrote: >> The various ADSP drafts fail to provide the essential version tag >> for their identification, this is no general TXT wildcard problem.
>> The general TXT problem is the *size* of all RXT records combined, >> and the various ADSP drafts refuse to share SPF records for their >> limited size needs. > While I myself am leaning away from TXT records for other reasons, > this is not one of them. ADSP is a bit more safe because like DKIM > it uses a _adsp label. If you look up a TXT record with that label > it makes less sense to expect anything other than ADSP. As explained in Dave's message: The "label" approach does not work with *wildcards*, for that you'd need a separate record type and/or a "tag" for the identification in the case of a shared record type (TXT, SPF, whatever). But his reasoning was backwards, with a "tag" for the identification of a desired record in a RR set it would also work for wildcards until the size issue for shared RR types kills it. See <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-dns-choices#section-3.1> for an "authoritative" (from my POV) statement about these issues. Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
