Re: Fwd: [dnsext] SPF isn't going to change, was Deprecating SPF

["John Levine" <[e-mail]>]

>>> Nobody has argued that SPF usage is zero, and the reasons for
>>> deprecating SPF have been described repeatedly here and on the ietf
>>> list, so this exercise seems fairly pointless.
>> 
>> 	the reasons for not deprecating SPF have been described here
>> 	and on the ietf list repeatedly ... yet there has been little
>> 	concrete data regarding deployment uptake.

Sigh.  We have RFC 6686.  Since this is clearly an issue you consider
to be of vital importance, it is baffling that (as far as I can tell)
you did not contribute to or even comment on it when it was being
written and published.

Those of us in the mail community have a lot of anecdotal evidence,
too.  Most notably, none of the large providers that dominate the mail
world publish or check type 99, and the one that used to check type 99
(Yahoo) doesn't any more.  You don't have to like it, but it's silly
to deny it.

In any event, it's purely a strawman that "nobody" checks type 99.  A
few people do, the WG knows that, and we decided for well documented
reasons to deprecate it anyway.

R's,
John