----- Original Message -----
From: "Yakov Shafranovich" <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
To: "Hector Santos" <winserver(_dot_)support(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com>
Cc: "ASRG" <asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Inquiry about CallerID Verification
Doesn't this apply to any approach? A DNS based solution can also be
overloaded just as well.
DNS lookups are *much* more lightweight than SMTP sessions. According to
RFC 1035, DNS queries can be done over UDP, with a limit of 512 bytes
per query, with the usual ones much smaller than that. This has two
advantages - very low transfer size, and also the usage of UDP does not
require an acknowledgement to be sent back unlike TCP, reducing traffic.
With the good DNS system, UPD is the first approach. However, it has
provisions to switch to a TCP stream connection if UDP fails.
Also, DNS information tends to be cached all over the Internet.
Thats the only good thing about it. :-)
In either case, that doesn't stop it from being overwhelmed.
ALSO, please do not take my comments as an attack on your approach,
rather I think that what is missing here, is the fact that your approach
is not 100% compliant with the standards.
I don't think you are correct. Everything I do is 100% compliant.
Everything else you stated is not worth even acknowledging. Its nonsense.
PS: Do me a favor, quit dumping the RFC on me. If you want to refer to an
section, please do. But I know what the specifications are backwards and
forwards with real compliant products in the market place.
---
Hector Santos
WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server"
support: http://www.winserver.com
sales: http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg