IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Updating the status of SPF

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 10 August 2011 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD86821F84B6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.575
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xSPSulnkMNds for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E5BF21F876A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from squire.local (unknown [216.17.251.17]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5735041463; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:19:04 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4E42A0F4.7010603@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:17:08 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DF606@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAHhFybrcfVbt=Wdt4jQbn-14tu3j_NyiW42BH5UNLLtfC8BAGg@mail.gmail.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DF68C@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DF68C@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Updating the status of SPF
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:16:56 -0000

<hat type='individual'/>

On 8/10/11 9:14 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message----- From: Frank Ellermann
>> [mailto:hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday,
>> August 10, 2011 5:22 AM To: Murray S. Kucherawy Cc:
>> apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Updating the
>> status of SPF
>> 
>> IMHO 0.01% SenderID vs. 16% SPF in a DNS survey published 2010 is
>> now a not completely irrelevant result -- that SPF started earlier
>> will never change, and at some point in time adoption has to mean
>> something.
>> 
>> DKIM started after SenderID, and it is already far beyond this
>> level in the same study.  It's not something that should be
>> mentioned in an RFC, but it is a motivation to work on a refresh
>> version covering all errata, and with updated references, e.g., RFC
>> 5321/2 instead of RFC 2821/2.
> 
> Given the history, maybe this is a case where an implementation
> report, normally used to promote something to Draft Standard, would
> be especially helpful?

Given that the SPF spec is Experimental, I agree that a report on the
experiment would be useful.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status