...... Original Message .......
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:20:10 -0500 Radu Hociung <radu(_at_)ohmi(_dot_)org>
wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
I'm leaning toward the better long-term solution. I don't see the
urgency
for deployment. It will be a long time before the whole world is using
SPF. I do see some urgency in responding to the DNS worries, and getting
this into the draft.
"include:not.me" may be a kludge too, but the fact that it can be used
now
with no programs that need to be upgraded on anybody's mail servers is a
huge advantage. If you want to wait for the real deal, you wait may be
very
long.
David is clearly emphasizing the long term, as am I, while you're very
concerned with the short term.
At this time, there are very few published records, and they are very
expensive. That is of no consequence because they are low volume.
If we want SPF to stay at current adoption levels, I would say that
neither mask method is worth the trouble.
But if the SPF adoption rises, I don't want SPF to become a monster that
will die because of the expense, and take the DNS system with it.
A good analogy is... currently we can tolerate one or two Hummer
drivers, but if everyone had one, we'd have to double-size all parking
spots. And then we'd need double the parking, for the same population.
The Hummer is an unsustainable aberration.
So is an expensive SPF technology.
But ask yourself the question... why are all these people on this
mailing list ? It's because we believe in SPF, and in the fact that in
the future it will be as omnipresent as SMTP itself. So what's your
reservation in designing the protocol with that expectation in mind?
Why hack now, at the beginning of it all. I don't care what the
naysayers say "if this was a year ago", etc. As long as SPF adoption
rate is slower than the new domain names, and slower than it's ever
been, that means it is dying. Refusing to improve SPF for the sake of
getting the draft out the door is akin to killing it faster.
Radu.
I don't see it that way. I think the lack of an RFC is much more important
than 1 query or 2. The 'Hack' solves 90% of the problem and is immediately
deployable.
Scott Kitterman