[Mimedefang] SPF record type - was Re: Only MX record is fake

[Kevin A. McGrail]

On 11/18/2011 8:50 PM, kd6lvw at yahoo.com wrote:
> The RFC also states that the use of TXT-RRs was a temporary measure for rapid deployment purposes until its own RR-type could be secured.  The IANA allocated type 99 to the SPF-RR in late 2005 (prior to the release of the RFC).  The RFC itself was issued in April 2006, and today is a little more than 5.5 years later.  Temporary does not mean 5+ years.  Within the RFC itself, it meant "long enough" for there to be widespread support of the new allocation.  BIND added support in the fall of 2006.
>
> There are still some (e.g. Verizon, an ISP) who query ONLY for TXT-RRs.  Per RFC 4408 itself, modern deployments should be querying for SPF-RRs first (and only seek TXT-RRs if no SPF-RR is found).  Clearly, the use of any "transitional mechanism" (i.e. TXT-RRs) has expired by now.
You know as well as I do that "temporary" has no definition in RFC-eaze 
and the RFC clearly states MUST regarding TXT records.  They know they 
have no hope of having the RR type be ubiquitous any time soon.  
Probably right about the time they switch everyone from IPv4 to 6.

Really, until the RFC is changed to use stronger RFC-eaze language, this 
argument is pointless.  People using only TXT records are compliant with 
the RFC.  Anything else is just elitism for the sake of elitism.  Then 
again, I think a plutocracy might be a good form of government... ;-)

regards,
KAM