On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:32:45 -0600 wayne <wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net> wrote:
The idea of SPF being easy to for people to publish, even if it makes
for more work for implementations has been a key concept since near
the beginning. If you want something that requires makes use of
things other than TXT records and gives the trade off toward
easy-of-implementation, you should have backed RMX, DMP, FSV or
CallerID, not SPF.
I think it is clear that Meng made the right trade off here and that
using TXT records, a simple language that could be easily created and
checked by hand was key to the success of SPF over those other
systems.
Yes. Absolutely.
I've actually put this lesson to work in other system engineering efforts
I've been involved in.
Think about complexity and put it where it can be managed best, even if
that increases the overall complexity of the system, you may get a better
result.
Scott K
-------
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