IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Mon, 23 April 2012 03:40 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 9DB0521F84E6 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.639
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.639 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 zpCGXEdUrbDe for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8F321F84E1 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 1FgN1j0010ZaKgw01FgN8Q; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:40:22 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=RaES+iRv c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=ldJM1g7oyCcA:10 a=w0_tcEhzsP4A:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=9k2WJzzG7kon74edPhkA:9 a=ijHgvR0mi_SDZDHKJJoA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=aiZyTcQNIzHW0AqmVFsA:9 a=5CRaVbMV4vx6eK5jyJcA:7 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:40:22 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05
Thread-Index: AQHNIMqwFmLLWp0VJEuOTXJcBTjdz5anwbsg
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 03:40:21 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FED0D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <CAC4RtVAV5PH+VMzppVxAQgGq0f28ARN846e17G_8sbLCThm-KA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVAV5PH+VMzppVxAQgGq0f28ARN846e17G_8sbLCThm-KA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FED0Dexchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335152422; bh=d53kQ4Catf+sNjZunlffGn/NKEfm9D099ui/k9jOcuo=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=N4ch/Qn9LJqv7plLVrABCSTgyVtHvHlViHI5sXB9/4yYNytMkl2N+Yl3k47xD9pca TiwK5pG1Hj0+77zHQMDniJwakiKUrfgm26fUChVMoVqaXl6kdJ1OLSkv6kFs7WIuz9 G9ylP6vOtsutkhgfA+gX3tlzTtQSg0NGr/fnHrIU=
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 03:40:27 -0000

Comments inline (alas):

From: spfbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:spfbis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 1:58 PM
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Subject: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05

OLD
   3.  Although the two mechanisms often used different email addresses
       as the subject being evaluated, no data collected showed any
       substantial operational benefit (e.g., cheaper processing,
       improved accuracy) to using Sender-ID over SPF.

I suggest "to using either mechanism over the other."

[MSK: I don't think that's correct.  Sender ID has a substantially higher processing cost given that it requires accepting the DATA part of the message and has an obviously higher cost to extract the various identifiers the PRA algorithm considers.  SPF, purely compute-wise, is cheaper.  However, their accuracy is comparable.  If we want to be clear, we can say their accuracies are about the same, but SPF is operationally cheaper.]

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email