TrustyAug 11, 2025

🚨 We’re updating how we handle SPF records! In alignment with RFC 7208 recommendations, we are discontinuing support for the dedicated SPF record type (RR type 99). Going forward, all SPF records should be defined exclusively as TXT records. 📖 Read more in our blog post or contact us. 👉 https://blog.dnsimple.com/2025/07/discontinuing-spf-record-type/

#SPF #DNS #EmailSecurity #RFC7208 #EmailAuthentication #TXTRecord #SPFRecord #EmailDeliverability #DNSConfiguration #CyberSecurity

Show threadGuillaume-Jean HerbietJun 21, 2024
@shaft OK. So I believe it is legitimate to consider TXT multi-strings concatenation makes sense for SPF records in #rfc7208 and “tokenization” is more appropriate for catalog zones in #rfc9432.
Guillaume-Jean HerbietJun 21, 2024
#dns question about multi-string TXT records: #rfc7208 section 3.3 says they shall be concatenated w/o space.
Is this applicable only to #spf records?
Looking at #rfc9432 (catalog zones) section 4.3.2.1 the group example "operator-y" "bar" seem to suggest this shall be interpreted as some sort of key/value (e.g. “operator-y=bar” or “operator-y bar”) where “operator-ybar” would not make any sense.
Neither #rcf1035 nor #rfc1464 mention multi-string TXT records.