----- Original Message -----
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 3:16 AM
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Eric Allman comments on SPF
The issue is one of complexity, do we put that complexity in every client
that looks up the information or do we put it into the tools to publish
and distribute this information.
It seems to me that many of the hacks envisaged in the protocol definition
could easily be implemented as DNS server extensions.
The sheer elegance of the current SPF protocol is precisely the fact that no
"DNS server extensions" are required. It all fits smoothly into current DNS.
If you think getting the current protocol draft adopted is hard, try getting
people, all over the world, to change their DNS server!
OK put code in BIND to grovel the mx records and generate the appropriate
SPF records.
Such code already exists; query the MX records, and BIND will tell you their
names + IP addresses. :) All kidding aside, this is what makes the current
SPF protocol so easy to adopt, that it readily integrates into existing DNS
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx
-------
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-02.9.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?¡