[72980] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SPF again (Re: XO Mail engineers?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David A.Ulevitch)
Wed Aug 4 18:49:53 2004
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408042158380.21827-100000@a.mx.ict1.everquick.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: David A.Ulevitch <davidu@everydns.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 15:46:17 -0700
To: "Edward B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Aug 4, 2004, at 3:23 PM, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
> DAU> I think people will realize that if we're remodeling the
> DAU> boat that much we should have at least made sure we were
> DAU> fixing something in the process...
>
> Indeed.
>
[snip]
> Running something DNS-based that requires simple parsing is
> hardly an earth-shattering change; it smells similar to DNSBLs,
> yes? Yet it's still somewhat controversial.
SPF's use of TXT records doesn't bother me so much. It's more that
people are (blindly) clamoring for it. SpamAssassin is going to start
checking SPF records.
If I don't choose to implement SPF my DNS servers are still going to
get those TXT record requests. I can't opt-out of that. I don't look
forward to getting a taste of what the root-server operators see in
their valid/invalid lookup ratios.
I think there are going to be some negative consequences as more people
implement SPF that will only become apparent at a certain scale.
-david
----------------------------------------------------
David A. Ulevitch - Founder, EveryDNS.Net
http://david.ulevitch.com -- http://everydns.net
----------------------------------------------------
