Re: [dnsext] Obsoleting SPF RRTYPE

Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Thu, 25 April 2013 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <dougb@dougbarton.us>
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 6073421F96AB for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 UjgDvhwM9YXj for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dougbarton.us (dougbarton.us [208.79.90.218]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8EA121F8E46 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:d:5e7:dce0:a142:9806:1a87] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:d:5e7:dce0:a142:9806:1a87]) by dougbarton.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DF9D22BA8 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:58:55 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dougbarton.us; s=dougbarton.us; t=1366909135; bh=koCwuiy8PT4IgOQliSM0TqsLfeJSED1EssR5q7A+Dio=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=jDjHjr+0PwZ1KiXh55coEDOivUHkQs7V/cH8HnvWxOt6Ad6zwpmkOL2qUUjB8J2W0 SCkWMDc/uJ+28cH7P8+XLOk/SKbhhetL6wc7H3lgn9uGof6sSsnWr3skS8vJBh2X9E pP7hlcRvP2DrS/xXvkYtTKAOkRQowcdkp95rSztE=
Message-ID: <517960CE.70604@dougbarton.us>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:58:54 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsext@ietf.org
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130423150008.0c2c0558@elandnews.com> <264F7B0D-C3FC-4C7C-A4D8-AF180DEC331F@virtualized.org> <20130425075147.GN23770@besserwisser.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130425075147.GN23770@besserwisser.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 16:58:57 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 04/25/2013 12:51 AM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
|
| OTOH, mixing up routing layer with application layer and gilding some
| IP addresses in favour of others is another Really Bad Idea; I'd rather
| throw the entire business of supposedly Good and Bad addresses out the
| window and start looking at the in-band data instead; ie. DKIM or similar.

Måns,

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.

Doug

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJReWDOAAoJEFzGhvEaGryEP9MH/0rgYgNClSehCLrR35PW8qo6
j+bppCf4gkGrZ9rtmWLQx+m1EMNlm+w+6eZDpvOSeMofyk9/7ri0ns+e28qjSl+c
lM+wgjl4+jrgmFc4LCp3I9cH1/2P1v5bca3Bzp1JDg9iMXz0S7bapzafaTamktvS
Z+LhYWV4WXPmUju2J/uAUEDozLZpvKlZMDVprbVeoDJLTIJFt8zOpQCEI6E/nK+v
itSEjiF+znxVnr39lyuJeExD+1l+0qb624BaixGb9/ytvAWTG2vnqCcgGhv0YqfZ
m3b6SgZFySkG9+Wt2R5dHKm/g3jt69k/Jj7WmIgwgVwCAXZOne/5hVZS7pLJzOo=
=QJ1r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----