-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Radu
Hociung
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 2:00 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Draft ammendments on DNS lookup limits
Scott Kitterman wrote:
I say again, how many currently valid sender policies do you
think it's OK
to break?
Hi Scott,
I think breaking 5% of valid working policies (counting only those
without loops of syntax errors) would be OK.
If SPF had standard status, I would probably say 0.5% breakages, and I
could even see a valid argument for 0.1%, depending on how major the
problem to be fixed was.
But it is a draft, ie, work in progress. Everyone who uses beta software
knows that they might have to upgrade as the bugs are worked out. SPF is
like that I think.
A few years ago, open mail relay were the norm. The standard did not
require them to be closed. And yet, everyone (100%) was required to
change their configurations and close their relays.
Write it up as the evolution of email. As long as we use email, it will
evolve. Sometimes it will affect more or fewer people.
How many do you think is ok to break?
Radu
None without good reason.
So far, it appears to me that you have a feeling that DNS load is
interfering with SPF adoption. That's not a good reason.
If people really wanted efficiency at the expensive of simplicity, RMX would
have succeeded.
Scott Kitterman