spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: TXT Records

2003-11-19 16:31:11
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Justin Mason wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Jonathan Steinert writes:
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.

Yeah, this is very important.  +1 from me on this point.
Many potential users would turn off SPF if a complete lookup
(incorporating several DNS lookups) takes more than a few seconds
on average.

+++ Even a few seconds would be painfull.  We process between 250K and 
300K messages per day.  I am hoping that number will quickly go down with 
the advant of SPF but, a couple of seconds right out of the gate would be 
horrible.

-- 
Der Hausmeister
~~~~~~JESUS
           ~~~~~~
Jesus Duarte
UNIX/Windows Systems Administrator (geek)
http://www.ipns.com/

jesus(_at_)cnnw(_dot_)net               jduarte(_at_)cnnw(_dot_)net     
postmaster(_at_)cnnw(_dot_)net
abuse(_at_)cnnw(_dot_)net               support(_at_)cnnw(_dot_)net     
postmaster(_at_)ipns(_dot_)com
abuse(_at_)ipns(_dot_)com               jesus(_at_)ipns(_dot_)com               
jesus(_at_)miraclesandwonders(_dot_)com


-------
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?¡


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>