On 3/17/2013 5:59 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
The rational course would be to set a sunset date on TXT style spf
records. April 2016 looks like a good date. 10 years after RFC
4408 was published.
+1
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinf
In message <201303180329.r2i3tycx025...@calcite.rhyolite.com>, Vernon Schryver
writes:
> > From: Mark Andrews
>
> > Yet libspf2 requests SPF records and falls back to TXT on NODATA.
> > It does not do a TXT query if it gets a SPF response.
>
> Even if my option of SPF is insane, compare the 2008
> From: Mark Andrews
> Yet libspf2 requests SPF records and falls back to TXT on NODATA.
> It does not do a TXT query if it gets a SPF response.
Even if my option of SPF is insane, compare the 2008 dates on
http://www.libspf2.org/ and the 2012 date on the surveys in RFC 6686.
It's clear that for
> Vernon Schryver writes:
> > > to laziness, DNS is not rocket science, I'm sure given ARM and
> access to
> > > google, a 13yo kid could get at least the "basics" right.
> >
> > Laziness?--nonsense. Postel's Law and simple logic predict the
truth hurts eh.
Didn't see your original post, vi
In message <201303180038.r2i0cwet026...@calcite.rhyolite.com>, Vernon Schryver
writes:
> > 20741, so direct SPF RR hits is about one third of those using TXT RR,
> > small, but, insignificant? I wouldn't really say so, but some might. I
> > suspect the SPF wanting to be deprecated is because of
> 20741, so direct SPF RR hits is about one third of those using TXT RR,
> small, but, insignificant? I wouldn't really say so, but some might. I
> suspect the SPF wanting to be deprecated is because of the lack of
> take-up, due to lazy admins, there are some resolvers in use from
> ancient debi
On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 17:29 +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 19:33 -0700, Dave Warren wrote:
>
> > On 3/13/2013 17:11, Noel Butler wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 14:43 -0700, Dave Warren wrote:
> > >
> > > > I almost wouldn't bother with SPF records these days th
7 matches
Mail list logo