Re: [Asrg] misconception in SPF

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Sun, 09 December 2012 00:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D92321F8AD2 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Dec 2012 16:35:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.84
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qK9BT0pLIGb8 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Dec 2012 16:35:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C83321F8ACA for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 8 Dec 2012 16:35:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C536E8A031 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 9 Dec 2012 00:35:25 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2012 19:35:33 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: asrg@irtf.org
Message-ID: <20121209003532.GC9196@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <20121207204554.18364.qmail@joyce.lan> <50C3CA7A.6080304@pscs.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <50C3CA7A.6080304@pscs.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [Asrg] misconception in SPF
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 00:35:29 -0000

On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 11:17:14PM +0000, Paul Smith wrote:
> Could we have a "direct parent" check rather than going up lots of levels?

No.

> Eg, if you are having to fall back to an A record, look at the
> direct parent for a TXT record with appropriate data in

You have _no reason_ whatever to suppose that the parent is the
appropriate place to ask this.  Indeed, you don't even have a reason
to suppose that the parent isn't part of the same zone delegation
you're looking at (where's the SOA?  And why does the SOA tell you
anything anyway, since organizations can cheerfully introduce zone
cuts for administrative purposes that have nothing to do with
delegating outside the controlling organization).

> It could be worth logging how many times we have to fall back to an
> A/AAAA record, AND the delivery succeeds - I may have a go at that
> ourselves.

That would indeed be useful empirical evidence.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com