that MIT paper again (Re: VeriSign's rapid DNS updates in .com/.net ) (longish)

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Fri Jul 23 23:09:39 UTC 2004


On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:30:46 BST, Simon Waters <simon at wretched.demon.co.uk>  said:

> I think relying on accurate DNS information to distinguish spammers from
> genuine senders is at best shakey currently, the only people I can think
> would suffer with making it easier and quicker to create new domains
> would be people relying on something like SPF, but I think that just
> reveals issues with SPF, and the design flaws of SPF shouldn't influence
> how we should manage the DNS.

Ahh.. but if SPF (complete with issues and design flaws) is widely deployed, we
may not have any choice regarding whether its issues and flaws dictate the DNS
management.

Remember that we've seen this before - RFC2052 didn't specify a '_', RFC2782
does.  And we all know where BIND's "delegation-only" came from....
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20040723/bee98b30/attachment.sig>


More information about the NANOG mailing list