On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 05:48:39PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I like that idea. So shoot holes in
it quick before I start promoting it.
We don't need a new standard for this. If you want to compile the records to
IP addresses, just do it. If you want to improve the syntax, do the
following:
1. Ditch PTR. It's virtually never necessary, way overused, and inherently
problematic.
Agreed. The few installations that could use it can easily emulate it
in their dns tree.
2. Combine a, ip4, and ip6 into one new mechanism. There's no need for them
to be separate and it's a source of common mistakes. An implementation can
distinguish based on the content after the ":".
Only true if it is certain that
a) top level domains will never be entirely numeric
and
b) implementations are smart enough not to look at the first label after the
colon
Given the sizes of the records we are talking about, I don't see where http
helps us much.
Even before the first byte is transfered, there's still the TCP vs UDP
disadvantage.
Another 2c
Alex
-------
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