-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tim Gladding writes:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Philip Gladstone wrote:
I think that the argument for using HTTP is fairly persuasive. In
particular, I can see a mechanism 'http' which takes a URL as an
argument. Thus we could do:
http://www.{%d}/cgi-bin/spf.cgi?sender=%{U}&ip=%{I}
Isn't this assuming that all sites that relay e-mail how have to run a
web server too, where they may have not done so before?
At least with DNS, you already have a DNS MX or A record pointing to you.
Adding another record is a whole lot less of a big deal than firing up a
whole new web server.
Yeah, agreed -- -1 for HTTP, and -1 for extending SMTP to do it. That
will not fly, and will not get deployed at a very large number of sites.
The overhead of setting up a TCP/IP connection is too high, there's a lack
of inbuilt caching, and there's firewall issues; it's just not an option.
Stick with DNS (and IMO stick with TXT records at that).
- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS
iD8DBQE/v9osQTcbUG5Y7woRAha1AKDM1bEAJcKcnShtAHhvXPAnESg0mQCfe9ZS
KGar8epjqg2o/ir2LShCRgc=
=vjrM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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?¡