nanog mailing list archives
Re: that MIT paper again (Re: VeriSign's rapid DNS updates in .com/.net ) (longish)
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:09:39 -0400
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:30:46 BST, Simon Waters <simon () 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....
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: that MIT paper again (Re: VeriSign's rapid DNS updates in .com/.net ) (longish) Simon Waters (Jul 23)
- Re: that MIT paper again (Re: VeriSign's rapid DNS updates in .com/.net ) (longish) Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 23)
- Re: that MIT paper again (Re: VeriSign's rapid DNS updates in .com/.net ) (longish) Daniel Karrenberg (Jul 24)