On Dec 16, 2005, at 4:44 PM, Matthew Elvey wrote:
Let's see. Full adoption of SPF would require about 100,000,000
domains adopt it. Full adoption of CSV would require about 100,000
domains adopt it. So if we factor in that ratio, CSV is seeing
broader adoption than SPF.
As a means of dealing with forged DSNs, beneficial levels of adoption
for BATV would only require 1 domain. The 2 extra TCP packets
exchanged beyond block-listing with error messages for BATV is
considered by some as a burden. Imagine asking the recipient to make
as many as 111 DNS lookups. : (
If email is to be taken seriously as a method for commerce, false
positive detections can not be ignored. With everyone filtering
DSNs, email will never be as reliable as the postal service. BATV
will help reduce the amount of indiscriminate DSN filtering, and CSV
can help eliminate collateral blocking by introducing the use of name-
based reputation.
Name-space reputation can also defend something able to defeat
routing exploits like DKIM. DKIM requires the entire exchange of the
message and milli-seconds of CPU. CSV and DKIM add one DNS lookup
each for this protection. Could the DKIM key be used to check an
encrypted local-part EHLO to get this down to one. : )
-Doug
_______________________________________________
ietf-clear mailing list
ietf-clear(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-clear