IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Mon, 26 August 2013 22:48 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C79B111E80F7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 X8Okk+FG7XfZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2FE711E8248 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4317820E40F6; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 18:48:05 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1377557285; bh=lr69s2Iut5swtvMaYM7SvKvuZgaFPgYtFv9ad/ZyzBY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=lBgEVZGRYnGFIs3FkS4gOk40CBT8Oc7sDxcMk8C+/u0xJt7k+yBwjy14sO3lu4gkv zGbNGRIVWf1YOdTgeExgzReiIasyfzCTDwgzx7CWpnP+fAHqn2x/aUROBgg+EWTYVB rXdSPMIzzfMRsy6BYWoeMCAaimVZMo95HThqeYKk=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D14520E4043; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 18:48:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 18:48:04 -0400
Message-ID: <1973922.OgEpFZ84lJ@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.8.0-29-generic; KDE/4.10.5; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <C5D75C5C-D468-4104-A478-0A055F43AED9@gmail.com>
References: <9884B9CD-0ED3-4D89-A100-58D05EA4BC98@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130823234808.0b7cfed0@elandnews.com> <C5D75C5C-D468-4104-A478-0A055F43AED9@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 22:48:27 -0000

On Monday, August 26, 2013 15:42:41 Douglas Otis wrote:
> Please also note that the PTR RR is not constrained in the current
> specification and can create erratic results.  It would be far safer to
> Perm error when overflowing on the number of PTR records.  There is no
> upper limit as some represent web farms hosting thousands of domains. 

This exact issue was the subject of working group discussion.  Since the 
number of PTR records is an attribute of the connect IP, it is under the 
control of the sending party, not the domain owner.  A cap that resulted in an 
error would, as a result, enable the sender to arbitrarily get an SPF 
permerror in place of a fail if desired.  The WG considered that not a good 
idea.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email