Re: [spfbis] Proposed spf TXT record change

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 11 February 2016 04:49 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D7D1A8AEA for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:49:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Ly1VlTvMvzl for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:49:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22f.google.com (mail-vk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5C551A8AE5 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:49:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id e185so29010791vkb.1 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:49:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=b3bEFdLPtV8mEpBEe0+8/34+/5g9V7b0syzGLFka4zQ=; b=UVL2vYc1W+LeS3xkx+xMLO4eYEgQDEkMk3r8lNgZL3Iha6KCBi1zHOPXm6AAPPvX6o obr5l/MmC2TX042c4ZXFHciBT595rVM3hdq+xq0kHHmTyc7bCIpvZT8cRmXGRspBX7MK JSvYr6A3x7QdB+ip6xEQiIJWATZX/c93LaSvUWueQziwbGOiPS4VoLFva/e4j10vjgv/ qtrtNa9j0b48RxAl8UievAhSxRH6XQM5snwKIH5HPzkVS1MUIvpq5c0DCXYxNJ5Frqg+ +lNzJ0gNH+sC+SU8jewx2CoSlfJVY+rOkaVDk4SsbIO9niFCAnhcMeghlC6yfbkgntzz dQSQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=b3bEFdLPtV8mEpBEe0+8/34+/5g9V7b0syzGLFka4zQ=; b=J8s2Ams/152T5ustmP/wPCnegndZgMnPHOmKrFTwKe5l+NPoGEoEx5ZOZQ0AnnY4Dh lg7/ZINS1etq+zYvjG32lPp+MOnDc+nb2SabCyNsAY4jyDr/VAB9xFtV/UQWeGijE4zM De3urQlqP8vmbOopLkmupekD+V7oLz+8jYhWLR1S6eeaY/Tpz3NvjVV3VS/sh5Vuj7Ho Lep7/hNoV3PD9JWLyXPuVqKBuMiSVHJPDd2OhFixP8rtL8W/N7H/Q5x+xGIS+eTOJaKL 0Z/K4J+dF3p3Bj+zY03z4UJ82+WhP6HSD4iGahvvLlYse/mFEiwnwQrpQAkHCSKDFKDd tO3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQ2fsUPKEb8pVaYXVP1CamKoLEOB09Qf0YULKo7NKdZmrmcvsVUJ1WUj6cqDkeYzwNmWnCdzIlLgNcsSQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.49.23 with SMTP id x23mr34171954vkx.0.1455166161936; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:49:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.65.93 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:49:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20160210003605.9A90F41C28F6@rock.dv.isc.org>
References: <56BA775B.9050109@ragged-software.com> <20160210003605.9A90F41C28F6@rock.dv.isc.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:49:21 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZWaWbkfOpjceXcr0EYsQARjkjJsFWy3dDA0QS_V+J6pA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11437e362be933052b7746bc
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/5mudN0zOEhjvNzuckuu2bGeFsPM>
Cc: "Roy A. Gilmore" <rag@ragged-software.com>, "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Proposed spf TXT record change
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:49:25 -0000

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>; wrote:

> This group won't allow the double query and will introduce spurious
> interoperablity arguments.  See the history of the SPF record type
> which if the group hadn't abandoned would be well on the way to
> being done by now as they abandoned the process just as the libraries
> using the new code point were being deployed.


I am mystified that the bitterness on this topic remains impervious to
things like evidence.

The history of the SPF record type is documented in RFC6686.   I'm happy to
let that document and the data it contains speak for itself.

I also contend that the record shows that the working group and the
community made an informed decision.

-MSK