Перекладіть "rfc" на Англійська

EN If you have been coming across the message “SPF exceeds maximum character limit”, that simply implies that the SPF record in your DNS is longer than the RFC-specified (RFC 7208) string character limit

• SPF exceeds maximum
• DNS is longer
• RFC-specified
• RFC
• string character limit

EN The most recent versions include RFC 8301 (issued in January 2018) and RFC 8463 (issued in September 2018) both assembling some key protocol improvements

• recent versions include
• issued in January
• RFC
• issued in September
• protocol improvements

EN In September 2018 the standard was first documented in RFC 8460.

• September the standard
• documented in RFC

EN Why does RFC specify this stringent SPF DNS lookup limit for domains?

• Why does RFC
• stringent SPF DNS
• limit for domains

EN While the SPF limit can appear to be quite an unwanted SPF limitation, it isn’t necessarily so. The SPF DNS lookup limit has been put in place to block Denial-of-Service attacks (as mentioned under RFC 7208).

• While the SPF
• unwanted SPF limitation
• SPF DNS lookup
• put in place
• block Denial-of-Service attacks
• mentioned under RFC

EN The SPF void lookup limit as specified by RFC is currently 2

• SPF void lookup
• specified by RFC
• currently

EN You can find this specification under RFC 7208 (section 11.1) that puts a limit on the number of SPF void lookups allowed per SPF check

• specification under RFC
• section
• puts a limit
• number of SPF
• lookups allowed per
• check

EN RFC recommends the limitation of SPF void lookups like these to a maximum of 2 to prevent erroneous SPF records from becoming contributing factors in the initiation of Denial-of-Service attacks.

• SPF void lookups
• erroneous SPF records
• becoming contributing factors
• initiation of Denial-of-Service

EN Avoid using the ptr mechanism in your record. This is because it isn’t currently supported according to RFC guidelines for SPF and further increases the number of characters in your SPF string

• currently supported according
• string

EN If you want to bypass the 255 character limit for SPF to get around the error message without failing SPF, RFC permits the usage of multiple strings for a single SPF DNS record

• want to bypass
• around the error
• without failing SPF
• single SPF DNS

EN Why does RFC specify this stringent SPF DNS lookup limit for domains?

• Why does RFC
• stringent SPF DNS
• limit for domains

EN While the SPF limit can appear to be quite an unwanted SPF limitation, it isn’t necessarily so. The SPF DNS lookup limit has been put in place to block Denial-of-Service attacks (as mentioned under RFC 7208).

• While the SPF
• unwanted SPF limitation
• SPF DNS lookup
• put in place
• block Denial-of-Service attacks
• mentioned under RFC

EN In September 2018 the standard was first documented in RFC 8460.

• September the standard
• documented in RFC

EN Delivered by RFC Chicken Palace 2 Go

• Delivered by RFC
• Palace Go

EN What is SPF? Email SPF as mentioned under RFC 7208 is an email authentication standard that protects organizations against impersonation

• SPF
• email authentication standard
• protects organizations against

EN In 2005, email SPF was recognized as an Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) experimental standard. Finally, in 2006, SPF was published with RFC 4408 as the specification (as experimental).

• Internet Engineering Task
• IETF
• experimental standard
• Finally
• SPF was published
• experimental

EN The specification is defined in RFC 6376.

• specification is defined
• RFC

EN TLS reports (published in RFC 8460) provide valuable information on your email?s deliverability.

• TLS reports
• published in RFC
• email

EN We have already covered the history of DMARC, now question is what is DMARC?s current state? In 2015, The DMARC specification was officially implemented by several global organizations and published under RFC 7489. 

• DMARC
• current state
• implemented by several
• organizations
• published under RFC

EN The current version of SPF in use is 2.0 and is defined in RFC 7208 from 2014

• defined in RFC

EN MTA-STS (published under RFC 8461) is an authentication protocol that makes sure emails are encrypted in transit.

• MTA-STS
• published under RFC

EN Our free TLS-RPT Record Generator tool instantly creates a record you can publish on your DNS. Optimize your domain to receive notifications on email delivery failures with your very own TLS-RPT DNS Record! RFC 8460[Read ]

• free TLS-RPT Record
• tool instantly creates
• DNS
• Optimize your domain
• very own TLS-RPT
• Record
• RFC
• Read

EN The full specifications for these caching headers are in RFC 7234, and discussed in sections 4.2 (Freshness) and 4.3 (Validation), but we will discuss them in more detail below.

• RFC
• discussed in sections
• Freshness
• Validation
• detail

EN RFC 7234 says that if no caching headers are present in a response, then the browser is allowed to heuristically cache the response—it suggests a cache duration of 10% of the time since the Last-Modified header (if passed)

• response
• then the browser
• allowed to heuristically
• suggests a cache
• since the Last-Modified
• passed

EN However, this syntax was not included in the final RFC

• However
• final RFC

EN ETag?s can be defined as either ?strong? or ?weak?, which allows browsers to validate them differently. A full understanding and discussion of this functionality is beyond the scope of this chapter but can be found in RFC 7232.

• ETag
• defined as either
• strong
• weak
• differently
• full understanding
• beyond the scope
• found in RFC

EN All three of these HTTP headers use a date formatted string to represent timestamps. The date-formatted string is defined in RFC 2616, and must specify a GMT timestamp string. For example:

• timestamps
• RFC
• timestamp string

EN But what happens if you have a Set-Cookie on a response? According to RFC 7234 Section 8, the presence of a Set-Cookie response header does not inhibit caching

• According to RFC
• response header does
• inhibit caching

EN The RFC goes on to recommend that you should configure appropriate Cache-Control headers to control how responses are cached.

• configure appropriate Cache-Control
• control how responses

EN An alternative proposal being tested is RFC 8297, which defines an informative 103 (Early Hints) response

• alternative proposal being
• RFC
• defines an informative
• Early Hints
• response