Re: bogus SPF deployment survey
ned+ietf-smtp@mrochek.com Mon, 30 April 2012 06:17 UTC
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3U6H49G089621 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 29 Apr 2012 23:17:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.13.5/Submit) id q3U6H4l2089620; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 23:17:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3U6H0mo089613 for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 23:17:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from ned+ietf-smtp@mrochek.com)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OEWPMLJNK0000S3F@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-smtp@imc.org; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 23:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OENEYWYFI80006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf-smtp@imc.org; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 23:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ietf-smtp@mrochek.com
Cc: ietf-smtp@imc.org
Message-id: <01OEWPMIQ18G0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 23:10:07 -0700
Subject: Re: bogus SPF deployment survey
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:42:29 +0200" <4F9AE895.6090801@tana.it>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
References: <20120427124313.8147.qmail@joyce.lan> <4F9AE895.6090801@tana.it>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smtp.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
> On Fri 27/Apr/2012 20:18:08 +0200 John Levine wrote: > > > > Please save your time and everyone else's by *not* responding to his > > message > You did :-) > How much time are we talking about here? Thinking on an evolutionary > scale, it doesn't seem to be comparable to the time the experiment took. FWIW, I looked at the survey before I saw John's note and decided on my own not to take it. AFAICT it's intended to assess what SPF policy, if any, has been implemented by the responder on their own host(s). I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would care what SPF policy I use at home (which is the only system I personally control and can speak about with any authority), especially since for an email implementor that policy is more likely to be the result of the need to test things rather than any actual personal need. If you want to ask questions of an audience of implementors, I suggest that you ask them what kind of support for SPF do they provide in their products and perhaps what they know (or don't know) about actual customer usage of those features. Ned
- SPF deployment survey Alessandro Vesely
- Re: bogus SPF deployment survey John Levine
- Re: bogus SPF deployment survey Alessandro Vesely
- Re: bogus SPF deployment survey ned+ietf-smtp
- Re: bogus SPF deployment survey Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: bogus SPF deployment survey Paul Smith
- Re: bogus SPF deployment survey Hector Santos
- Re: bogus SPF deployment survey Alessandro Vesely
- Re: bogus SPF deployment survey ned+ietf-smtp
- Re: bogus SPF deployment survey ned+ietf-smtp
- Re: bogus SPF deployment survey Alessandro Vesely
- Re: bogus SPF deployment survey ned+ietf-smtp