-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, wayne spewed into the bitstream:
w>libspf2 byte-compiles SPF records into a compact binary form. This
w>form gives a clear structure and makes SPF records use fewer bytes on
w>the wire. So, it *is* possible. For example, hotmail.com currently
w>uses 922 bytes of SPF records spread over 5 individual records. The
w>libspf2 format uses only 258 bytes and could fit in a single SPF record.
w>
w>However, there has been very little interested expressed in this and
w>and I doubt that it would be widely adopted. I really doubt that the
w>bind folks would be willing to put a complete SPF parser into their
w>name server. Also, because many languages don't deal well with binary
w>structures (e.g. perl, python, etc.), SPF implementations in those
w>languages would actually be slightly more complicated.
I don't want to come across as overly critical or even negative here but
I really have to say this... as we look at possible architectures can we
please, PLEASE not turn the phone book into a lead weight... it's
already big enough and it does it's job pretty well... making it a
parsing engine as well seems to me to be the wrong approach. Can we just
ask it to print our new entries and nothing more? :-)
NB. This would also serve to minimize the impact on existing
infrastructure which is most definitely "a good thing" <tm>.
txs!
- --
Chuck Mead <csm(_at_)redhat(_dot_)com>
Instructor II (and resident Postfix bigot), GLS
Disclaimer: "It's Thursday and my name is Locutus of B0rk!"
Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBk65cZfy0juH51WsRAkzMAJ9diMyHNRK1Uz11x1korwQYSpbLuQCfaeUH
4CflG5bAl/ndQ9GJ/t1c8oU=
=QxDL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----