SPF Record field needed in the dropdown
I contacted Modulegarden which has the DNSManager module for WHMCS, I asked them to include a SPF record field from the dropdown and they reported that this can't be done because the Zone template system by WHM/cPanel doesn't support it yet. Here is their message
Hello,
Regarding SPF record. Unfortunately I am not able to add this record to a
sub-module because it is not supported by cPanel in the zone edit form. See
attached screenshot. There is no SPF records in the record list.
Maybe I missed something? Please advise.
Damian Lipski
ModulesGarden Development Team
I include a photo here of what he is talking about
/http://i40.tinypic.com/2czekw9.png
If we could get a SPF record in the field and possibly find a solution for longer DKIM Keys as right now Bind requires them to be split up if they go past 2048 bit long keys, Maybe that is something Bind would need to update on but SPF records should be able to become a selection in the dropdown like TXT etc, then Modulegarden could do this in future updates.
I like this idea 
cPanel, WebHost Manager and WHM are registered trademarks of cPanel, L.L.C. for providing its computer software that facilitates the management and configuration of Internet web servers.
For SPF, the TXT RR should be used. SPF records are deprecated by the IETF and not recommended for use. Please see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-20#page-12 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-20#section-13.1
DKIM keys longer than 2048 bits must be split into multiple fields. This is a limitation of the spec for TXT records.
For SPF, the TXT RR should be used. SPF records are deprecated by the IETF and not recommended for use. Please see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-20#page-12 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-20#section-13.1
DKIM keys longer than 2048 bits must be split into multiple fields. This is a limitation of the spec for TXT records.
For SPF, the TXT RR should be used. SPF records are deprecated by the IETF and not recommended for use. Please see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-20#page-12 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-20#section-13.1
DKIM keys longer than 2048 bits must be split into multiple fields. This is a limitation of the spec for TXT records.
For SPF, the TXT RR should be used. SPF records are deprecated by the IETF and not recommended for use. Please see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-20#page-12 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-20#section-13.1
DKIM keys longer than 2048 bits must be split into multiple fields. This is a limitation of the spec for TXT records.
Hello,
Thank you for letting me know. I am simply asking for a client, and had to do so to get some sort of feedback so I can give him a reasonable answer as to why this is not possible and would or would not be in the future. Your response suffices :)
Hello,
Thank you for letting me know. I am simply asking for a client, and had to do so to get some sort of feedback so I can give him a reasonable answer as to why this is not possible and would or would not be in the future. Your response suffices :)
Hello,
Lot of checking sites/tools are asking one.
Is it possible to add one manually, editor?
Thanks a lot.
Hello,
Lot of checking sites/tools are asking one.
Is it possible to add one manually, editor?
Thanks a lot.
I can tell you this wont happen. cPanel is towing the line with the RFC in regards to it being experimental / depreciated and won't invest the time.
I can tell you this wont happen. cPanel is towing the line with the RFC in regards to it being experimental / depreciated and won't invest the time.
The DNS TXT resource record type facilitates valid SPF records. Using the DNS SPF RR type is not recommended nor required for publishing valid SPF records.
Section 3.1 of RFC 7208 states "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."
Reference: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7208#section-3.1
The DNS TXT resource record type facilitates valid SPF records. Using the DNS SPF RR type is not recommended nor required for publishing valid SPF records.
Section 3.1 of RFC 7208 states "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."
Reference: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7208#section-3.1
Kenneth Power is correct, the current SPF standard uses TXT records only, not SPF records.
RFC 7208 goes on to explain why:
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.
Essentially cPanel was part of the problem, along with othe provisioning system, by not adopting SPF records early, so now TXT is the entrenched standard, and it's too late to change that.
Kenneth Power is correct, the current SPF standard uses TXT records only, not SPF records.
RFC 7208 goes on to explain why:
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.
Essentially cPanel was part of the problem, along with othe provisioning system, by not adopting SPF records early, so now TXT is the entrenched standard, and it's too late to change that.
Replies have been locked on this page!