Do I need to leave SPF TXT record for backwards compatibility?What's the proper format for an SPF record?Do SPF Records For Primary Domain apply to subdomains?SPF record for Gmail?SPF TXT records - do I need to include sub domains for an outsourced sender SPF recordOffice365 SPF record has too many lookupsSPF Softfail when Txt Record ExistsRoute 53 - Should I duplicate my SPF records as TXT records?SPF record for MX records?Long SPF (TXT) records not resolving on UbuntuMultiple SPF entries in same or separate TXT records
Arrow those variables!
What's the point of deactivating Num Lock on login screens?
Why is Minecraft giving an OpenGL error?
How is it possible to have an ability score that is less than 3?
Do I have a twin with permutated remainders?
Horror movie about a virus at the prom; beginning and end are stylized as a cartoon
Alternative to sending password over mail?
How old can references or sources in a thesis be?
Why can't we play rap on piano?
Two films in a tank, only one comes out with a development error – why?
Modeling an IP Address
NMaximize is not converging to a solution
Why are electrically insulating heatsinks so rare? Is it just cost?
What doth I be?
If human space travel is limited by the G force vulnerability, is there a way to counter G forces?
DC-DC converter from low voltage at high current, to high voltage at low current
How to move a thin line with the black arrow in Illustrator?
Decision tree nodes overlapping with Tikz
How can bays and straits be determined in a procedurally generated map?
Paid for article while in US on F-1 visa?
Watching something be written to a file live with tail
Filter any system log file by date or date range
Are the number of citations and number of published articles the most important criteria for a tenure promotion?
Uncaught TypeError: 'set' on proxy: trap returned falsish for property Name
Do I need to leave SPF TXT record for backwards compatibility?
What's the proper format for an SPF record?Do SPF Records For Primary Domain apply to subdomains?SPF record for Gmail?SPF TXT records - do I need to include sub domains for an outsourced sender SPF recordOffice365 SPF record has too many lookupsSPF Softfail when Txt Record ExistsRoute 53 - Should I duplicate my SPF records as TXT records?SPF record for MX records?Long SPF (TXT) records not resolving on UbuntuMultiple SPF entries in same or separate TXT records
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
There is a dedicated DNS SPF record which can be used for SPF record. However DNS TXT record may also be used for backwards compatibility.
If i CAN define SPF record - should i just delete the deprecated TXT record or leave it?
domain-name-system email spam spf
asked Nov 16 '10 at 9:12
Janis VeinbergsJanis Veinbergs
1,00231731
add a comment |
There is a dedicated DNS SPF record which can be used for SPF record. However DNS TXT record may also be used for backwards compatibility.
If i CAN define SPF record - should i just delete the deprecated TXT record or leave it?
domain-name-system email spam spf
asked Nov 16 '10 at 9:12
Janis VeinbergsJanis Veinbergs
1,00231731
add a comment |
There is a dedicated DNS SPF record which can be used for SPF record. However DNS TXT record may also be used for backwards compatibility.
If i CAN define SPF record - should i just delete the deprecated TXT record or leave it?
domain-name-system email spam spf
asked Nov 16 '10 at 9:12
Janis VeinbergsJanis Veinbergs
1,00231731
There is a dedicated DNS SPF record which can be used for SPF record. However DNS TXT record may also be used for backwards compatibility.
If i CAN define SPF record - should i just delete the deprecated TXT record or leave it?
domain-name-system email spam spf
domain-name-system email spam spf
asked Nov 16 '10 at 9:12
Janis VeinbergsJanis Veinbergs
1,00231731
asked Nov 16 '10 at 9:12
Janis VeinbergsJanis Veinbergs
1,00231731
asked Nov 16 '10 at 9:12
Janis VeinbergsJanis Veinbergs
1,00231731
asked Nov 16 '10 at 9:12
Janis VeinbergsJanis Veinbergs
1,00231731
asked Nov 16 '10 at 9:12
Janis VeinbergsJanis Veinbergs
1,00231731
1,00231731
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Actually following RFC 7208, section 3.1. you should only be using the TXT type record:
SPF records MUST be published as a DNS TXT (type 16) Resource Record
(RR) [RFC1035] only. The character content of the record is encoded
as [US-ASCII]. Use of alternative DNS RR types was supported in
SPF's experimental phase but has been discontinued.
The SPF RR type has been deprecated by the SPFbis working group in April 2014. Reasoning for this can also be found in RFC 7208, section 3.1., which obsoletes the older RFC 4408:
In 2003, when SPF was first being developed, the requirements for
assignment of a new DNS RR type were considerably more stringent than
they are now. Additionally, support for easy deployment of new DNS
RR types was not widely deployed in DNS servers and provisioning
systems. As a result, developers of SPF found it easier and more
practical to use the TXT RR type for SPF records.
answered Oct 6 '16 at 17:29
JHoffmannJHoffmann
18613
"I am become Time, the destroyer of worlds."
– 84104
Oct 6 '16 at 17:37
A-ha, time has passed and this is now a better answer.
– Janis Veinbergs
Oct 7 '16 at 7:57
add a comment |
I chose to leave mine. It doesn't cost anything, and may continue to work.
Revisit this in a few years when more servers/clients have updated, and if you can, see who is asking for the TXT record perhaps.
answered Nov 16 '10 at 9:47
Michael GraffMichael Graff
6,15411835
add a comment |
RFC 7208 is a bad proposal that should not be adopted. Today ( 2019), my DNS servers still see queries for SPF type 99 records, so clearly there are other people who ignore the incorrect conclusions reached in that RFC and in 6686.
answered Apr 2 at 19:32
MR.XMR.X
1
New contributor
MR.X is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Is your rationale that because a very few people are stuck in the past that everyone should remain stuck in the past? That's kind of how this situation arose to begin with.
– Michael Hampton♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "2"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f202349%2fdo-i-need-to-leave-spf-txt-record-for-backwards-compatibility%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Actually following RFC 7208, section 3.1. you should only be using the TXT type record:
SPF records MUST be published as a DNS TXT (type 16) Resource Record
(RR) [RFC1035] only. The character content of the record is encoded
as [US-ASCII]. Use of alternative DNS RR types was supported in
SPF's experimental phase but has been discontinued.
The SPF RR type has been deprecated by the SPFbis working group in April 2014. Reasoning for this can also be found in RFC 7208, section 3.1., which obsoletes the older RFC 4408:
In 2003, when SPF was first being developed, the requirements for
assignment of a new DNS RR type were considerably more stringent than
they are now. Additionally, support for easy deployment of new DNS
RR types was not widely deployed in DNS servers and provisioning
systems. As a result, developers of SPF found it easier and more
practical to use the TXT RR type for SPF records.
answered Oct 6 '16 at 17:29
JHoffmannJHoffmann
18613
"I am become Time, the destroyer of worlds."
– 84104
Oct 6 '16 at 17:37
A-ha, time has passed and this is now a better answer.
– Janis Veinbergs
Oct 7 '16 at 7:57
add a comment |
Actually following RFC 7208, section 3.1. you should only be using the TXT type record:
SPF records MUST be published as a DNS TXT (type 16) Resource Record
(RR) [RFC1035] only. The character content of the record is encoded
as [US-ASCII]. Use of alternative DNS RR types was supported in
SPF's experimental phase but has been discontinued.
The SPF RR type has been deprecated by the SPFbis working group in April 2014. Reasoning for this can also be found in RFC 7208, section 3.1., which obsoletes the older RFC 4408:
In 2003, when SPF was first being developed, the requirements for
assignment of a new DNS RR type were considerably more stringent than
they are now. Additionally, support for easy deployment of new DNS
RR types was not widely deployed in DNS servers and provisioning
systems. As a result, developers of SPF found it easier and more
practical to use the TXT RR type for SPF records.
answered Oct 6 '16 at 17:29
JHoffmannJHoffmann
18613
"I am become Time, the destroyer of worlds."
– 84104
Oct 6 '16 at 17:37
A-ha, time has passed and this is now a better answer.
– Janis Veinbergs
Oct 7 '16 at 7:57
add a comment |
Actually following RFC 7208, section 3.1. you should only be using the TXT type record:
SPF records MUST be published as a DNS TXT (type 16) Resource Record
(RR) [RFC1035] only. The character content of the record is encoded
as [US-ASCII]. Use of alternative DNS RR types was supported in
SPF's experimental phase but has been discontinued.
The SPF RR type has been deprecated by the SPFbis working group in April 2014. Reasoning for this can also be found in RFC 7208, section 3.1., which obsoletes the older RFC 4408:
In 2003, when SPF was first being developed, the requirements for
assignment of a new DNS RR type were considerably more stringent than
they are now. Additionally, support for easy deployment of new DNS
RR types was not widely deployed in DNS servers and provisioning
systems. As a result, developers of SPF found it easier and more
practical to use the TXT RR type for SPF records.
answered Oct 6 '16 at 17:29
JHoffmannJHoffmann
18613
Actually following RFC 7208, section 3.1. you should only be using the TXT type record:
SPF records MUST be published as a DNS TXT (type 16) Resource Record
(RR) [RFC1035] only. The character content of the record is encoded
as [US-ASCII]. Use of alternative DNS RR types was supported in
SPF's experimental phase but has been discontinued.
The SPF RR type has been deprecated by the SPFbis working group in April 2014. Reasoning for this can also be found in RFC 7208, section 3.1., which obsoletes the older RFC 4408:
In 2003, when SPF was first being developed, the requirements for
assignment of a new DNS RR type were considerably more stringent than
they are now. Additionally, support for easy deployment of new DNS
RR types was not widely deployed in DNS servers and provisioning
systems. As a result, developers of SPF found it easier and more
practical to use the TXT RR type for SPF records.
answered Oct 6 '16 at 17:29
JHoffmannJHoffmann
18613
answered Oct 6 '16 at 17:29
JHoffmannJHoffmann
18613
answered Oct 6 '16 at 17:29
JHoffmannJHoffmann
18613
answered Oct 6 '16 at 17:29
JHoffmannJHoffmann
18613
18613
"I am become Time, the destroyer of worlds."
– 84104
Oct 6 '16 at 17:37
A-ha, time has passed and this is now a better answer.
– Janis Veinbergs
Oct 7 '16 at 7:57
add a comment |
"I am become Time, the destroyer of worlds."
– 84104
Oct 6 '16 at 17:37
A-ha, time has passed and this is now a better answer.
– Janis Veinbergs
Oct 7 '16 at 7:57
"I am become Time, the destroyer of worlds."
– 84104
Oct 6 '16 at 17:37
"I am become Time, the destroyer of worlds."
– 84104
Oct 6 '16 at 17:37
A-ha, time has passed and this is now a better answer.
– Janis Veinbergs
Oct 7 '16 at 7:57
A-ha, time has passed and this is now a better answer.
– Janis Veinbergs
Oct 7 '16 at 7:57
add a comment |
I chose to leave mine. It doesn't cost anything, and may continue to work.
Revisit this in a few years when more servers/clients have updated, and if you can, see who is asking for the TXT record perhaps.
answered Nov 16 '10 at 9:47
Michael GraffMichael Graff
6,15411835
add a comment |
I chose to leave mine. It doesn't cost anything, and may continue to work.
Revisit this in a few years when more servers/clients have updated, and if you can, see who is asking for the TXT record perhaps.
answered Nov 16 '10 at 9:47
Michael GraffMichael Graff
6,15411835
add a comment |
I chose to leave mine. It doesn't cost anything, and may continue to work.
Revisit this in a few years when more servers/clients have updated, and if you can, see who is asking for the TXT record perhaps.
answered Nov 16 '10 at 9:47
Michael GraffMichael Graff
6,15411835
I chose to leave mine. It doesn't cost anything, and may continue to work.
Revisit this in a few years when more servers/clients have updated, and if you can, see who is asking for the TXT record perhaps.
answered Nov 16 '10 at 9:47
Michael GraffMichael Graff
6,15411835
answered Nov 16 '10 at 9:47
Michael GraffMichael Graff
6,15411835
answered Nov 16 '10 at 9:47
Michael GraffMichael Graff
6,15411835
answered Nov 16 '10 at 9:47
Michael GraffMichael Graff
6,15411835
6,15411835
add a comment |
add a comment |
RFC 7208 is a bad proposal that should not be adopted. Today ( 2019), my DNS servers still see queries for SPF type 99 records, so clearly there are other people who ignore the incorrect conclusions reached in that RFC and in 6686.
answered Apr 2 at 19:32
MR.XMR.X
1
New contributor
MR.X is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Is your rationale that because a very few people are stuck in the past that everyone should remain stuck in the past? That's kind of how this situation arose to begin with.
– Michael Hampton♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
RFC 7208 is a bad proposal that should not be adopted. Today ( 2019), my DNS servers still see queries for SPF type 99 records, so clearly there are other people who ignore the incorrect conclusions reached in that RFC and in 6686.
answered Apr 2 at 19:32
MR.XMR.X
1
New contributor
MR.X is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Is your rationale that because a very few people are stuck in the past that everyone should remain stuck in the past? That's kind of how this situation arose to begin with.
– Michael Hampton♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
RFC 7208 is a bad proposal that should not be adopted. Today ( 2019), my DNS servers still see queries for SPF type 99 records, so clearly there are other people who ignore the incorrect conclusions reached in that RFC and in 6686.
answered Apr 2 at 19:32
MR.XMR.X
1
New contributor
MR.X is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
RFC 7208 is a bad proposal that should not be adopted. Today ( 2019), my DNS servers still see queries for SPF type 99 records, so clearly there are other people who ignore the incorrect conclusions reached in that RFC and in 6686.
answered Apr 2 at 19:32
MR.XMR.X
1
New contributor
MR.X is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Apr 2 at 19:32
MR.XMR.X
1
New contributor
MR.X is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Apr 2 at 19:32
MR.XMR.X
1
answered Apr 2 at 19:32
MR.XMR.X
1
1
New contributor
MR.X is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
MR.X is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
MR.X is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Is your rationale that because a very few people are stuck in the past that everyone should remain stuck in the past? That's kind of how this situation arose to begin with.
– Michael Hampton♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
1
Is your rationale that because a very few people are stuck in the past that everyone should remain stuck in the past? That's kind of how this situation arose to begin with.
– Michael Hampton♦
2 days ago
1
1
Is your rationale that because a very few people are stuck in the past that everyone should remain stuck in the past? That's kind of how this situation arose to begin with.
– Michael Hampton♦
2 days ago
Is your rationale that because a very few people are stuck in the past that everyone should remain stuck in the past? That's kind of how this situation arose to begin with.
– Michael Hampton♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f202349%2fdo-i-need-to-leave-spf-txt-record-for-backwards-compatibility%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
