Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR

Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt(_at_)gulbrandsen(_dot_)priv(_dot_)no> wrote:
> You know, if can give the receiver an SPF record to interpret, you can 
> interpret that same data yourself. Therefore, RPC-to-publisher is at 
> least as capable as SPF-like schemes.
  And more expensive for the publisher.  It's cheap for the publisher
to drop semi-static data into a packet, and have the recipient do
validation.

  Having the publisher do the validation leads to a DoS.

  Alan DeKok.