On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I agree that compiling can and should be done now.
But doing it on the sender side eliminates the complexity of a
tiny language, and replaces it with a larger but simpler exhaustive list.
If all senders compile their SPF record (use only IP4/IP6 chained with
redirect), then we can eliminate a bunch of complexity in checking SPF.
There is no need for a new spec for this. This can be done with software and
the existing spec.
Agreed, but if everyone does it, then we don't need anything but ip4/ip6
(and perhaps redirect= for chaining instead of HTTP) of the current spec. It
becomes "reduced instruction set" SPF - moving the complexity to the
"compiler".
--
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