In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Douglas Otis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The SPF script language does not improve data compression. APL RR > (RFC3123) provides 10 times the informational density and existed prior > to SPF development. *sigh* Where do you get this "10 times" claim from? To represent an IPv4 address: APL entries require 16 + 8 + 1 + 7 + 32 = 64 bits or 8 bytes SPF ip4: mechanism require from 12 to 23 bytes, depending on the decimal digits and if CIDR notation is used. That is *AT MOST* a factor of less than 3. For IPv6 addresses the difference is even less. Come on Doug. Like this highly exaggerated SPF DoS potential, I did testing back in early 2004. Very compact, binary encoded SPF records are rarely less than half the size of the text versions. The RMX proposal used APL records. It went no where. There are good reasons why. I'll spare this list a rehash of the thousands of posts from the IRTF ASRG WG, SPF-discuss and the IETF MARID WG mailing lists. -wayne . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
