SPF Sender Policy Framework (deprecated) Common
A deprecated standalone record type for SPF data — modern SPF is published as a TXT record instead.
What it's for
SPF was briefly defined as its own dedicated DNS record type (RFC 4408) so that Sender Policy Framework data could live in a purpose-specific record rather than sharing the general-purpose TXT record space. In practice, this never gained meaningful adoption — most DNS software, mail servers, and providers continued using TXT records for SPF regardless — and RFC 7208 (2014) formally deprecated the standalone SPF record type, cementing TXT as the one and only place SPF policy should live going forward.
If you encounter documentation, tools, or examples referencing a distinct SPF record type today, treat it as the same information you'd find on the SPF page for TXT records — this page exists in the reference primarily so you recognize the type if you see it and know it's deprecated, not because you should use it.
Format & syntax
Historically:
example.com. 3600 IN SPF "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~all"
The syntax mirrors exactly what you'd put in a TXT record for SPF — same v=spf1 prefix, same mechanisms (include, a, mx, ip4, ip6, ~all/-all, etc.). The only difference was ever the record type code itself, not the content format.
Today, this data should exclusively live in a TXT record at the same name, formatted identically.
How it's used in practice
- Not used in current best practice — modern SPF deployment guidance universally points to TXT records; you should not create a standalone SPF-type record for new configurations.
- Occasionally still present in old zones — some long-lived, manually maintained zone files from the mid-2010s or earlier may still have a leftover SPF-type record alongside (or instead of) the TXT-based equivalent — a sign of legacy configuration rather than current intent.
- Historical context for understanding older documentation — if you're reading older mail deliverability guides or tooling documentation that references "the SPF record type" as something distinct from TXT, this history explains why that terminology exists and why it's now outdated.
Common mistakes & gotchas
- Creating a standalone SPF record instead of a TXT record today — this is the main mistake to avoid: modern mail servers overwhelmingly look for SPF policy in TXT records, not the deprecated SPF record type. Some DNS providers don't even offer the option to create a standalone SPF record anymore for exactly this reason.
- Having both an SPF-type record and a TXT record with conflicting content — a leftover legacy SPF record that's drifted out of sync with the actual TXT-based SPF policy can create confusing, inconsistent signals, depending on which (if either) a given receiving mail server actually checks.
- Assuming the record type name affects the SPF syntax itself — the confusion here is purely about which DNS record type to use for storage; the actual SPF string format (
v=spf1 ...) is identical either way and unaffected by this distinction.
Comparison & FAQ
| Type | Purpose | Key difference from SPF (record type) |
|---|---|---|
| TXT | The current, correct place to publish SPF policy | The modern, universally supported home for SPF data — this deprecated SPF record type used to compete with it for the same job |
Should I create a standalone SPF record for my domain?
No — the standalone SPF DNS record type was formally deprecated by RFC 7208. Publish your SPF policy as a TXT record instead; that's what virtually every mail server checks today.
Why did a dedicated SPF record type exist in the first place?
It was an early attempt to give SPF its own purpose-specific record type separate from the general-purpose TXT record, but it never achieved meaningful real-world adoption compared to just using TXT, which is why it was later deprecated.
What should I do if I find an old standalone SPF record in my zone?
Verify your actual SPF policy is correctly published as a TXT record, and consider removing the legacy SPF-type record to avoid any inconsistency between the two, since only the TXT version is meaningfully checked by modern mail infrastructure.
Does the deprecated SPF record type use different SPF syntax than TXT?
No — the SPF policy string format (v=spf1 ... and its mechanisms) is identical regardless of which record type historically held it. Only the record type itself is deprecated, not the SPF syntax.