costs of different approaches

[Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >  hill to climb around the administration of adding another
> >  record (its type doesn't matter).  Their issue is that
> >  forward DNS is under the control of another entity and
> >  just getting the MX to point to the right  place is
> >  headache."
>
>  Is this one of the primary reasons MARID failed? The DNS
>  management issues of Sender ID and SPF are much more taxing
>  (orders of magnitude more frequent updates, little
>  possbilities of using the same record for different hosted
>  domains etc) than the specs that have been proposed here.

The common, public mantra is that approaches like domainkeys are 
more 'complex' than approaches like spf and sender-id.

I believe this is wrong, for exactly the reason you state.  Path 
registration schemes have simpler software algorithms, but far 
more difficult on-going administration requirements.  So it is a 
trade-off between one-time codewriting versus on-going 
administration effort.

d/
--
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://brandenburg.com>