-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Wayne 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.
How does using tools for checking against security limits conflict with
easy deployment?
Do you really think that people like to count DNS lookups against the 111
limit "by eye" for any but the most trivial cases? Would that limit
become "un-SPF-ish" and should be removed as soon as using an automatic
checker becomes more convenient than counting by eye?
Sorry, I can't follow your argument.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFR52QwL7PKlBZWjsRAovjAJ4565mw9ixELpApx9Zugy538EgVvACgpUvK
dKagCi591b0NR9KMJNpFN/g=
=ZJNu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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