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

[Jelte Jansen <[e-mail]>]

On 08/21/2013 03:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Speaking as the SPFBIS co-chair…
> 
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:55:33AM -0700, manning bill wrote:
>> to see if the trend has changed (modulo PAFs observations that not all TXT == SPF).   In the mean time, declare a suspension of
>> last call to gauge if the presumption of failure of the SPF RR merits this drastic action.
> 
> I think this would have been a fair request for the LC of RFC 6686,
> which was presenting data about the state of the world at the time.
> We had a heck of a time getting people to review that document, to
> provide data, or to analyse the data.  I think it's unfair to the WG
> to have refused to pitch in, and now to tell the WG that it has to sit
> on its hands and then do some more work later, particularly because
> these two data sets are hardly representative ones.  If we're going to
> undertake a large scale data gathering experiment, I'll be all for it
> as soon as we have some really large mail system operators involved.
> (We did have those in SPFBIS, please note.)
> 

Just wondering, could OARC's recent DITL data help? (perhaps if only to
see whether another large-scale targeted effort is needed)

I definitely see TYPE=99 queries on our servers, but I can't see the
answers.

Jelte