On Fri, 12 May 2006, Hector Santos wrote:
I briefly review it and failed to talk about the payload scalability
differences. SPF is a smtp 2821 solution, SID is a payload 2822 solution.
Given the empirical data showing that PRA == 2821.MAIL FROM, atleast 80% of
the time, SID is a major overhead consideration.
That is certainly a valid criticism. However, the goal of the
SPF_vs_Sender_ID article is to clear up confusion between the
two from a NPOV (so as not to offend those in a position to
fix the SPF reuse error).
There is a link from SPF_vs_Sender_ID to our criticism of Sender-ID on
old.openspf.org. Would you like to volunteer to update the
critique for the new website?
However, I can see room for pointing out in "which is better" that
SPF works with all 2822 protocols, including Sender-ID, to make them
more efficient by rejecting the real junk early.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
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