spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Steve Bellovin comments on SPF

2004-01-06 07:18:06
In <20040106040400(_dot_)GA12170(_at_)altair(_dot_)ipal(_dot_)net> Phil Howard 
<phil-spf-discuss(_at_)ipal(_dot_)net> writes:

[ ... ]                                             I am working on the
design of my own name server program right now [...]


Ah!

Now I better understand your comments on SPAM-L why you think the
complexity of a designated sender system should be put in the namer
server.  :->


While SPF is designed to work right now with unmodified name servers,
there are a bunch of things that a modified name server could do.

For one thing, a name server could provide glue records based on the
SPF record.  For example, a trivial SPF record of "v=spf1 mx -all"
could include glue records of the MX information.  Glue records could
also be provided for exist: and include: options.  Heck, most SPF
options could use glue records.

On SPAM-L, you enquired about the custom name server that does
rate-limiting via SPF (http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/server.pl).
There are many similar things that could be automated in a more
general name server.


While I suspect that SPF isn't the design that you would choose to do,
I think it might still be acceptable compared with starting a whole
new designated sender proposal.



-wayne


-------
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?¡