IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: e2e

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 16 August 2007 23:41 UTC

Return-path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILoxy-0008LC-He; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:41:26 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILoxx-0008L3-3b for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:41:25 -0400
Received: from ns1.qubic.net ([208.185.248.67]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILoxw-0001FA-KC for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:41:24 -0400
Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.2.Alpha0/8.14.2.Alpha0) with ESMTP id l7GNf8v1017947 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1187307682; x=1187394082; bh=8GdENfP7yHyKJMdt2ppN23VFPQRk/Gvpk6+z JAxtwX4=; h=DomainKey-Signature:Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From: Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=IUH 6+e8Giy7SK56eqNcfwBXNYEMZDTtzAvGZByzvLPEJFKxLza3ePpJVzlyogkt7FfTubx XLpRShm/cT7USmQVnZGA298eAHoibUdbVRHu+Wsz98ikLG8A6/HUYkLQp7SKhNQDvFd 1eKZ2aEDQwabtR4BloafG6JXuf2J29+ROg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=3Uqpn9wIi079csYdBEhbUIInVIncPYpNP7Zl+CNCf1LzWRnwLjhQ/Ppnz0TpMyDrx mT7/+eF69LdbYoPSapJK3A6PpVDDy7/j8u0KN36fYP34rmMGyxquI2W+a33Awqc6+a6 xXMMIAG81/XjpHJLnxsXCuD8u17HfUMCEi+Xk/w=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20070816160118.02bd7400@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:40:55 -0700
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B0E17BD3@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain 1.systemhost.net>
References: <198A730C2044DE4A96749D13E167AD3701341995@MOU1WNEXMB04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8244E3BE-1A26-4B0A-99DC-0DF7AF7F8810@cisco.com> <46C29647.5070202@qualcomm.com> <FABD8E3A-D5CF-4EED-927B-A039BCAEE90C@cisco.com> <46C36461.2060907@cs.utk.edu> <46C36599.9040907@cisco.com> <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B0DBB6F4@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20070816104133.02bbb2f0@resistor.net> <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B0E17BD3@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
Subject: RE: e2e
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

At 14:36 16-08-2007, Douglas Otis wrote:
>The resources of recipients who attempt to process SPF record-sets
>can be easily exploited.  SPF might be instrumental in staging DDoS
>attacks or in poisoning DNS, despite the use of BCP38 and ACLs on
>recursive resolvers.  By utilizing local-part macros, cached SPF

I'll keep out of the debate about the advantages and disadvantages of SPF.

At 15:01 16-08-2007, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
>Great. A web page last updated in 2003 and an email archive averaging 4
>messages a month this year.

A read of the archive may show that while everyone agrees that there 
is a problem, it's difficult to find consensus as to the solution.

>Now you are criticising an architecture document which does not yet
>exist.

That was not the intent.

Regards,
-sm



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email