Fwd: [dnsext] SPF isn't going to change, was Deprecating SPF

2013-08-23 Thread manning bill 


Begin forwarded message:

 Resent-From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
 From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
 Subject: Re: [dnsext] SPF isn't going to change, was Deprecating SPF
 Date: August 23, 2013 10:03:26 PDT
 Resent-To: bmann...@isi.edu
 To: John Levine jo...@taugh.com
 Cc: dns...@ietf.org
 
 On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:14:38PM -, John Levine wrote:
 I counted my queries from a few days ago and got 7086 TXT, 263 SPF, or 3.7%.
 
 Nobody has argued that SPF usage is zero, and the reasons for
 deprecating SPF have been described repeatedly here and on the ietf
 list, so this exercise seems fairly pointless.
 
   the reasons for not deprecating SPF have been described here
   and on the ietf list repeatedly ... yet there has been little
   concrete data regarding deployment uptake. These published
   snapshots form a baseline - 201308, and it might be worthwhile
   to look again in six months to see if the magnitude and ratio 
   have changed.  The results of a second look should bring into
   focus the prevaling trends and solidify the argument.
 
   Surely there is no compelling urgency to conclude the current 
   LC - given the duration of this work a six month period to 
   gain emperical insight would not be a bad thing.
 
   Would it?
 
 /bill
   
 
 R's,
 John
 ___
 dnsext mailing list
 dns...@ietf.org
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
 ___
 dnsext mailing list
 dns...@ietf.org
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

Re: Fwd: [dnsext] SPF isn't going to change, was Deprecating SPF

2013-08-23 Thread John Levine 
 Nobody has argued that SPF usage is zero, and the reasons for
 deprecating SPF have been described repeatedly here and on the ietf
 list, so this exercise seems fairly pointless.
 
  the reasons for not deprecating SPF have been described here
  and on the ietf list repeatedly ... yet there has been little
  concrete data regarding deployment uptake.

Sigh.  We have RFC 6686.  Since this is clearly an issue you consider
to be of vital importance, it is baffling that (as far as I can tell)
you did not contribute to or even comment on it when it was being
written and published.

Those of us in the mail community have a lot of anecdotal evidence,
too.  Most notably, none of the large providers that dominate the mail
world publish or check type 99, and the one that used to check type 99
(Yahoo) doesn't any more.  You don't have to like it, but it's silly
to deny it.

In any event, it's purely a strawman that nobody checks type 99.  A
few people do, the WG knows that, and we decided for well documented
reasons to deprecate it anyway.

R's,
John