Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe)

[Jim Fenton <fenton@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 08:44 PM 8/25/2004 -0700, Rand Wacker wrote:
>My concern for Sender ID is that since SPF has already claimed the FQDN
>TXT dataspace for itself (and since SPF is seeing parallel adoption
>regardless of where Sender ID goes), trying to stuff a second Sender ID
>record in the same data space will be problematic for some, and if we
>ever try to evolve this to a third version then it will *never* fit.

I share this concern, but...


>The solution I would suggest is to put spfv2/pra records in a sub-domain
>such as _marid.company.com.  While it would be nice to recommend that
>people begin allowing TCP DNS queries, it is unlikely that the highest
>volume sites would ever want to implement such.

I think it was brought up earlier that using a prefix like _marid would break the use of wildcards (can't do _marid.*.example.com).  But it wasn't clear (to me, at least) whether wildcards would work in this application, even without the prefix.  Wildcard support would be very nice to have, to provide symmetry with wildcard MX records for incoming mail.  Can anyone clear up whether adding the prefix breaks wildcards, or were they already broken?

Of course, a new record type would be preferable, but there are real-world deployment issues there.

-Jim