I need to just point out; If we keep adding things to do in DNS lookups
in a serial order, the time it takes to do an SPF lookup goes up and up
and up.
I'm not saying that these aren't good ideas, but we need to realize that
the tradeoff is in longer SPF lookup times. The trouble is that SPF is
being designed to be fast enough to run at message acceptance time, and
on high load servers it's bad to keep a connection open for long.
--Jonathan
Philip Gladstone wrote:
This could be handled in the following way:
1 Add a rule to SPF that says that in the event of no SPF record being
found on a domain, then try the _spf subdomain. (There was talk at one
stage of always going to the _spf subdomain).
2 For budget DNS providers, let customers use CNAME to get from
_spf.domain1.com to _spf.maindomain.com where maindomain.com is
hosted on an enlightened provider like zoneedit.
When the SPF bandwagon starts to roll, and the small DNS providers start
to find that people are moving away from them due to their lack of TXT
records, then they will start to support them.
Philip
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.6.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡