On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 06:05:19PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
| Meng Weng Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com>:
| > I will address these points one by one later. On the whole this is
| > excellent feedback which will move the draft forward significantly.
|
| Yes, it is excellent feedback. Reinforces what some of us have been
| telling you for months; SPF needs its own record type.
In principle, I agree that a new concept needs a new record type. However,
getting that record type implemented into new name server software quickly
is something that will be hard to do. It shouldn't have been, but name
server software seems all designed to be that way. I am working on the
design of my own name server program right now (with the intent to add some
new kinds of flexibility for the administrator). One of the things I am
considering in the design is a configuration file that will define all
record types, allowing a new one to be added as simply as adding a line
in that config file and sending HUP to the daemon.
Getting adoption by major ISPs is going to be hard enough. A new RR is
going to just make that even harder. That's not to say it should not go
that way, but I think it needs to move ahead now and use what it can use
today, with a plan for the steps of a graceful phase over to the new RR.
So can I treat your response as your support for allocation of a new RR?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
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-02.9.4.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?¡