IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14

Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com> Wed, 08 May 2013 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <spf2@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F0121F8E49 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 13:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.123
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.123 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.476, 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 4Cj8TDqxfK+u for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 13:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9EFE21F8E56 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2013 13:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0971120E412A; Wed, 8 May 2013 16:46:43 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1368046003; bh=VF2XWy2E/RrByXEzcnjVP6Y1Zi65q+mGnlg/F01sQD8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=VeaSXXkKN+rd+sF7KT4Tjid0bSJpKaytVqTPgRHKgsWgy9j4WwnSMA5D5cC3zgNxX LA2HfTf6JyFhb81h+BbAoR33YYgo1Ryk7kK0LcJOQ5nw/tVc3+v0/y4e6zwpKEdPzN S0xIEzpZttSVjuVdb1QZfo/jlfQ7ESLp8J3flxJw=
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 E3F4420E40F6; Wed, 8 May 2013 16:46:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 16:46:40 -0400
Message-ID: <2275712.VBDSrjNjif@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.10.2 (Linux/3.8.0-19-generic; KDE/4.10.2; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20130508204213.31359.qmail@joyce.lan>
References: <20130508204213.31359.qmail@joyce.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 20:46:49 -0000

On Wednesday, May 08, 2013 08:42:13 PM John Levine wrote:
> >Yeah, that's probably right.  My own view is that a recursion limit of
> >10 is phenomenally expensive (impractical) and a much smaller number
> >would be much better; but I assume that discussion isn't in scope...
> 
> I think you'll find that the libraries have all had a limit of 10 for
> quite a while, and nothing bad has happened.
> 
> Also, there are definitely real SPF records with 9 or 10 indirections,
> typically companies that include an ESP's record that has ranges all
> over the place.  Were we to drop the limit below 10, there would be
> interop problems.

Definitely.  I'm not so far aware of a domain that couldn't express it's record 
within the processing limits if they made the effort to try, but there are 
large ADMDs with records that exceed the limits on a not infrequent basis and 
ahve to be reminded.

Lowering limits is not a realistic option.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email