In
<5(_dot_)2(_dot_)1(_dot_)1(_dot_)0(_dot_)20050504164603(_dot_)043275e0(_at_)pop(_dot_)mail(_dot_)yahoo(_dot_)com>
David MacQuigg <dmquigg-spf(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com> writes:
At 05:42 PM 5/4/2005 -0400, Radu Hociung wrote:
Here are my partially formed opinions:
1) DNS has a few flaws in its design. [snip]
Yeah, but for something that was deployed in 1983(?), back when a lot
of people didn't even have a PC, it has scaled amazingly well with
very few changes.
2) SPF made a mistake in abandoning the _trick. Now we have to deal
with overcrowded TXT records, and a migration headache from TXT to SPF.
Before we switched to putting the SPF record at the email domain
level, there were two surveys done. One looked at how often there
were already TXT records there, and the other, as you mention above,
about how many DNS hosting services would allow an underscore. The
TXT record usage showed that we would probably be safe and that there
really wasn't much "overcrowding" of TXT records. Later, during the
MARID WG, I did much more extensive surveys on TXT record usage and
the size of SPF records and showed that there REALLY isn't an
"overcrowding" problem with TXT records.
In hind sight, I think we made the right choice.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that I was against this change back then, so
I've been proven wrong.
-wayne