On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 06:10:16PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 07:41:23AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> This is related to the point that I think Ted Lemon made elsewhere on
> the topic: the big operators of mail are so big that if even one of
> them were doing something with SPF, it would really move the needle.
> The fact is that they're not, and the one who _was_ doing something
> with it has given up because the additional query adds load and
> latency for no benefit.
>
> A
so on one hand, you have the second query (load & latency)
((exactly like a CA lookup)) v. the RR demux that has to occur
for type 16.
sounds like the tradeoff between code complexity and network latency...
(is there a statement from the "one who _was_ doing something" as to
why they changed?)
Am I missing something?
/bill
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.