Re: SPF isn't going to change, was Deprecating SPF

On 2013-08-23, Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> sent:
> I am an SPF validator. On day 0, there are very few people
> publishing SPF-99 records, and many publishing SPF-16 records.
> I have a lot of mail volume coming in. What is my incentive to
> embrace SPFCheckNG? Please address the latency effects for
> large mail operators.

I'm not sure I fully understand the latency argument here.
Wouldn't you just fire off the SPF-99 and TXT-16 queries
asynchronously? Waiting for two answers shouldn't be much longer
than waiting for one answer when done in parallel.

And long term, wouldn't there be benefits from not having to sift
through any other TXT records you receive for the ones that look
like SPF records?

-- 
Chip Marshall <[email protected]>
http://2bithacker.net/

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAlIbvn8ACgkQnTUxIUPEgZ6c3QCfWaNWAXjrp0J9vo3UwxclXrN9
5fcAn3Sl4s/MRY23n3umsrwO4M7UPrfa
=OtDS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----