Re: [dnsext] Obsoleting SPF RRTYPE

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 25 April 2013 21:38 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44C4721F9699 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, 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 JFZGH3v+gyrd for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF5921F9674 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 97191 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2013 21:38:45 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 25 Apr 2013 21:38:45 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=5179a265.xn--3zv.k1304; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=A8+CswciSGcBxqfHOKRdvlue3mwBNiKXo0HKoT2J5qw=; b=K7POr/sl9pYhHEGII06fc31EsGP983MJ0J3Tx45IvNrUP2luL1MCh9LaCGKDdLrmdNTeOywwT29iw4kOWEGaKeluTqWcmtUYO8PhNsrW5nYCrYa9POM3HeeY8iQhWxGxCa+/+i6UPIdulaXJ3G6qIdpWGB2YoHIyY8ceKn+CzlU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=5179a265.xn--3zv.k1304; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=A8+CswciSGcBxqfHOKRdvlue3mwBNiKXo0HKoT2J5qw=; b=OaqZ9dpyK2u339wGZey2MYGTcpDsH/FpcEPeSi9Y2MEqmGM0YsVVZ03YOXitaazV+GyqH3BbkVu0g0TPReiRF+796vI7csZM/Uyw/Rql2QF7LFAj2UEHkrEZbf3pds4nn2t8XE2lazNZrc3TXmz+X8+m9sOXzHTW16yVrEOcPqM=
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:23 -0000
Message-ID: <20130425213823.66741.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <517960CE.70604@dougbarton.us>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Obsoleting SPF RRTYPE
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:38:47 -0000

>SPF has one important benefit that DKIM cannot, reduction of
>joe-jobbing. I used to get backscatter at the rate of at least 2-3 per
>day, with peaks of 10-20. After adding an SPF record with the hard-fail
>option that's down to a couple per month.

Gee, on a bad day I used to get 300,000, mostly from parts of the
world where SPF still isn't very widely used.  (Yes. that's the right
number of zeros.)  Now it's down to an insignificant 250 or so, mostly
because the spammer who used to forge my address in all his spam has
gone on to other stuff.

Look, we all understand why glomming everything into TXT records is
not ideal.  If we were defining SPf from scratch, and the time to get
new rrtypes into provisioning systems were measured in months rather
than decades, we'd likely have done something else.  But we aren't,
and it's not.

R's,
John