spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: [spf-discuss] New SPF Council - was Reclassifying Sender ID and SPF as Historic

2009-01-20 08:34:39
just a quick reply to my own reply
re the whole v=spf3 stuff

several have commented with all the v1 and v2 records in place and now a v3 on 
top
will add too much byteweight to the response to a query for UDP to handle 
efficiently {or at all in some cases}

this is a serious issue {was my problem with spf originally as it broke my 
standard of adding txt and rp records to most hosts
{now just rp pointing to a txt container}

so should we be considering a standard sub-zone for spf going forward?

like _spfvX.domain-to-be-checked

so only v3 records {or future versions in that sub-zone, thus 
record-byte-weight becomes a non-factor}
additionally NXDOMAIN is a quick no spfvX check {as opposed to grabbing text 
and parsing for spfvX}
which overtime {when fallback to spfv1 and sender-id depreciates} will make 
grabbing txt from domains with no spf but other txt records, less time 
consuming to search.

I'm thinking along the lines of CSA or other marid stuff

just a thinking out loud excersise.....



-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>