spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: the inevitability of SRS

2004-01-13 10:27:43
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:03:04PM +0100, Anthony Howe wrote:
| 
| I've considered that, but the point still remains that SRS in its 
| current form does not document this and Meng leans heavily towards SRS. 
| Either SRS has to change or RFC 2821 has too.
| 

It is rather easy to go over the 64 byte limit.

I would be happy to release a Mail::SRS::DBI subclass that performs the
rewrite to a 32 char HMAC plus 32 char DB key or something like that.

The point of publishing an SRS standard was so that an intermediary
could replace   A-B(_at_)C   with   A-D(_at_)E  instead of having to do
A-B-C-D(_at_)E(_dot_)  If the whole thing gets shoved into a DB there's no need 
for
a standard syntax with delimiters and whatnot.

I have unsubscribed achowe(_at_)snert(_dot_)com for now, please resubscribe when
snert.com's filters are less aggressive / verbose.


-------
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?¡