IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 21 August 2013 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 B9E5511E8258 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.534
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 2XrjO3UTDwdK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5B911E823B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.226.234.102]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7LNIBPi009418 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1377127105; bh=iOl7nnUNMSgvpRkgwaj/GO1ijCivuhRFi1HLSgP6Lug=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=JvuLO7oWr1HBYga7e+8c/yZ8bwNYJqxJNTIQWVsHpWmDkxkxmIAWV1E3UNFhz+kF1 BUudh4X9Rkn9KQmvvQBHEOLcmdEH1bn4LK2Ne84vE6OKXcsHvCjkLogEPshNrdWa2I eK0AmIovwZnzt2B6YFc3+PgsY6F3nttwEup82J/0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1377127105; i=@elandsys.com; bh=iOl7nnUNMSgvpRkgwaj/GO1ijCivuhRFi1HLSgP6Lug=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=auW/IyeS8Os2XZg/tQm7gqe+AYHhueTyeNR9hgUPGrl6kQy3ZlXc7ZaPbooQFLvTi MgR8qw0/G2xdDSWJ7klKEiecibqrM9e9azWlL52vQb/GoN6SdPyr8+6frJ9nGAUr/M PAaCvfv/O0v9Oc6ypw9HiElFEZjnWI3D+XTJAH3w=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130821153516.0c69e9d0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:16:12 -0700
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <521495EB.7060207@cisco.com>
References: <20130819150521.GB21088@besserwisser.org> <20130819160549.61542.qmail@joyce.lan> <20130819190533.GA30516@besserwisser.org> <4751241.GTNxysAlzm@scott-latitude-e6320> <B443E973-858A-4958-964B-B0F0FBDF5A7A@virtualized.org> <CAMm+LwhcHOeUv0iqZmZ6wX-jOD1r-mRR0x8sbxaKrsU3k4CNBQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130821040003.GL607@mx1.yitter.info> <64700EE4-85B3-4179-904A-885770C6BBF4@virtualized.org> <7F8D4DA5-F80B-432B-8231-5B40ADB61783@frobbit.se> <521495EB.7060207@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
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: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 23:18:41 -0000

Hi Eliot,
At 03:26 21-08-2013, Eliot Lear wrote:
>First, I appreciate that you and Dave are bringing data to the 
>table.  However, in this case, it is not in dispute that queries are 
>happening.  What *is* in dispute is whether there are answers.  I 
>must admit I am having a difficult time understanding the logic, 
>even so.  The *hard* part about this was supposed to be 
>implementation of the record in the application software.  Can the 
>shepherd answer this question:
>To what extent has that happened?

There is a thread about libspf2 querying for RRTYPE 99 first ( 
https://lists.exim.org/lurker/message/20110812.094310.3a53c0f6.gl.html#exim-users 
).

I'll also mention 
http://support.godaddy.com/groups/domains-management-and-services/forum/topic/spf-type-99/ 
and http://features.cpanel.net/responses/ability-to-create-spf-type-99-records

Here are a few messages on the SPFBIS mailing list about RRTYPE 99:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00555.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03778.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03781.html

The SPFBIS WG Chair asked a question about what to conclude given the 
SPFBIS Charter ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03779.html ).

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email