[note: I'm exceeding the suggested limit of 3 emails to this list per
day because I didn't post anything yesterday. This will be my last
email for today.]
In <20040324191459(_dot_)GO96036(_at_)bitshift(_dot_)org> "Mark C. Langston"
<mark(_at_)bitshift(_dot_)org> writes:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 12:25:40PM -0600, wayne wrote:
Well, I guess it all depends on your definition of "wide use", but [...]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
HTTP did not see "wide use, in significantly less tha 3 years".
[and other such comments snipped]
As I said, it all depends on what your defintion of "wide use" is.
The numbers you quoted are inline with my understandings and I would
certainly consider them to show widespread use.
Trying to pin down a definition of "wide use" is probably pretty
useless though.
As for SPF on the road to widespread use: Isn't the current registry at
only about 6000 or so domains?
Adoption rolls are notoriously inaccurate and only really show an
absolute miminum. That said, the last numbers I saw on the website
was around 9,000 and it has (apparently) reached the point where the
number of domains is exceeding the resources of a volunteer's efforts
to track them.
It is also known that several large domain parking systems have
published SPF records for all of their parked domains. The number of
actual domains with SPF records is probably in the range of 100,000 to
500,000, but that could be off by a factor of >10.
Even if there were 6 million
domains advertising SPF records, it wouldn't we "widespread use".
Again, I disagree on your definition of "widespread use". Besides,
a more important measure is percentage of email with that is sent
rather than the number of domains. Heck, even a better measure is the
number of unauthorized emails sent, since that is what the LMAP
proposals are trying to eliminate.
If the end-user DOES have a legal right to use the domain name, and they
are prohibted from doing so thanks to SPF or similar proposals, what
then?
Then there are, obvious, well known and well established methods of
seeking legal remedies. The existance of such legal remedies tends to
limit the amount of illegal abuse.
The LMAP proposals are, fundementally, about giving domain name owners
a voice. The fact that some domain owners will choose to say things
that are shortsighted, bad, hateful, or stupid is not a valid reason
keep them gagged.
Okay, then: This domain name owner would like to use his voice to state
that he's not happy with the idea of being unable to use his domain
names while mobile.
If you, as a domain name owner, choose to make your life difficult for
your self, then, well, I'm happy for you.
I can see merit in the argument that begins, "a client could be written
to dynamically update the TXT record when you connect to the network",
were we discussing a notebook I own, on a network with no transparent
proxies. But that's not the case.
A proof-of-concept rate-limiting DNS server for SPF was published several
months ago. This would allow you, as a domain owner, to let a certain
number of emails from unexpected sources to go through without any
problems, while still greatly limiting the damage done by spammers.
There was at least one person earlier this year that was talking about
writing an SPF-after-IMAP DNS server, but I don't know if there was
ever working code written.
-wayne