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?¡