-----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: Thursday, March 24, 2005 11:53 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: DNS load research
I'm not a 100% sure on the calculations either, and I was hoping that
someone would go over them and do a sanity check. Hopefully not
Scott-style, but more of an engineering check, where my assumptions are
checked as well as my calculations and results. Perhaps David would do
this ? :) Hint, hint, thank you in advance :)
OK. Let's try it again.
I think your scenario is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how SMTP
works.
Be going back to RFC 2821, I was trying to check your assumptions.
I think they are wrong and your single 60 byte UDP packet has no effect.
I am not the world's greatest SMTP expert, so I'm quite willing to accept
that I'm the one that's wrong.
Before we move on and redesign SPF to take into account your amplification
factors, I'd like to understand if they are correct. I don't think they
are.
It appears that we are not communicating very well. I am not trying to
insult you. I am trying to figure this out. If I have, my apologies. It
wasn't intended.
Now, can an entire SMTP session be contained in one packet of data? One of
your core assumptions is that it can. Can someone else confirm that? Can
someone else deny it?
Scott Kitterman