domain-name-system – Route 53 – 我应该将我的SPF记录复制为TXT记录吗？

Amazon Route 53支持“SPF记录”和“TXT记录”.我读过的大多数文档告诉我将SPF记录列为TXT记录.据我所知,SPF记录是一个较新的标准.因此,我是否正确复制我的SPF记录,以便将它们列为SPF记录和TXT记录,以确保在遵循新标准的同时向后兼容？我不熟悉DNS所以不确定这是否会导致任何问题,或者我是否应该费心去复制它们？

我的记录如下：

"v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com include:amazonses.com -all"
"spf2.0/pra include:_spf.google.com include:amazonses.com -all"

解决方法

实际上,SPF RR类型是较新的标准(在期望的SPF行为的上下文中)并不正确. experimental phase of the SPF specification有一个新的记录类型,但迁移路径不明确,后来被放弃了.

current version of the SPF spec具体说明：

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.

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.

In its review of [RFC4408],the SPFbis working group concluded that
its dual RR type transition model was fundamentally flawed since it
contained no common RR type that implementers were required to serve
and required to check. Many alternatives were considered to resolve
this issue,but ultimately the working group concluded that
significant migration to the SPF RR type in the foreseeable future
was very unlikely and that the best solution for resolving this
interoperability issue was to drop support for the SPF RR type from
SPF version 1. See Appendix A of [RFC6686] for further information.

The circumstances surrounding SPF’s initial deployment a decade ago
are unique. If a future update to SPF were developed that did not
reuse existing SPF records,it Could use the SPF RR type. SPF’s use
of the TXT RR type for structured data should in no way be taken as
precedent for future protocol designers. Further discussion of
design considerations when using new DNS RR types can be found in
[RFC5507].

作为旁注,在您的示例中还有一个发件人ID记录(不幸的是,它被称为“spf2.0”,尽管它是一个不同的规范),该类记录的规则仍然是实验性的,match the experimental version of the SPF spec,没有更新发布.

原文地址：https://www.jb51.cc/html/229426.html