spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: DNS load research

2005-03-21 12:54:32
Guy wrote:
If the mx mechanism is so bad, why not recommend it be removed from the
spec?  Or at lest listed as "SHOULD NOT USE".

Because even I, a fairly fearless dude, do not dare tempt the mob in this way. ;) (I mean mob in the most friendly way possible :) )

I only have so much energy, and I like to channel it on one issue at a time, in the order of importance as I perceive it.

I'm glad that you suggest this, because it means that I've managed to raise some awareness on the SPF impact on DNS, which has been grossly understated till recently.

If you wish to undertake that work of lobbying to remove mx, please do. I'm with you on this one.

Maybe one day there will be an SPF record type.  Then the DNS servers could
optionally compile the SPF record to a simpler (less expensive) form,
automatically!  Even "include:"s could be pulled in, as long as the TTL is
obeyed, and the SPF record re-compiled when something expires.

That would be awsome. But even then we'll have to support 'legacy' SPF clients, and they will seem awfully expensive by comparison to the server-compiled SPF records, but we'll be stuck with them.

Regards,
Radu.

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper!  http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com

Attachment: radu.vcf
Description: Vcard

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>