Re: [spfbis] Proposed spf TXT record change

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Thu, 11 February 2016 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@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 098241B325B for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:30:34 -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 j5YmE4b9Vi5m for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:30:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22a.google.com (mail-vk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22a]) (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 34CB41B3265 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:30:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id e6so37470916vkh.2 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:30:26 -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=pbFQ0U3sX25jvhWiOG/blAGllc+qESsym7X26krCl1k=; b=jgQ2iyA491HWkn52fVBNTasCj83wsyqGeCjs1TzL2zdw0ZaBw5oyYjojMTSJe7Kplo NHmJoJbp+pEK+WmLM3ftHTFVMnvCCV2RmETkMKIPpRMZaTAQ88FF1kF/Kn3vIX0LStyK a0CyOV30vV5gArANaPPofM+5SEtpYLYcTz8hTwHQ2I/uc/8JaCPACoN0KnREKzB+ISmu nFw667MB1cue7EOGd8HnSCiFKy4qYyZ7bg3C9v6Vzwgt5ZRtIQYy3DMRFmIFMJC0oTsK EiDwJXYgGWJhjEAEVAdFaYKitZfYwt0xL94BH/GAHlrdfQdiwXg3y8c4Ryi5m6h9MHb4 HOwQ==
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=pbFQ0U3sX25jvhWiOG/blAGllc+qESsym7X26krCl1k=; b=SQ3FVxg1pc9WiTrciuE+GuUDeAL/nE2xdN9iAUED0n/Bs0jiRte3mX/pymCA7ncubI gTziX5Di7jdY4H9Fv2w1ocEohfYJD3FBthw/gF+ThbSsmQQ3MuIxRGmU13VH+JXoddlv NfGk1Pf0QYihA9A47MhJF38L/jCeGhp3dTou92a0nqEn44T76QkmGYAp1UZSA/DCMytt K/ykOIZpz+JM2LgVOjcrGGZoAaE+5MDDkpAbjWLifMY0ncXu9xDNcoSrLgUys8/mnF+I bTwnvJhuh4FsmB2ApPhZsF6ZAxBF6MuRAQte2P7oy7/mWenx0CfIWZeNMHWUA/25eMWv nAzQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTamN9nApspN6vGDujVPSkvfSH9lp4n8BRuU/ZL0x7o/io4mpLmKv/aCeq8Qezlwt5iI4mHrkHf6ONyaw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.162.20 with SMTP id l20mr31834230vke.137.1455201025228; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:30:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.32.194 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:30:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYffMDnCy8rmRqWzEm7Ypr-NExYeFH=sTm3X3Ad23wm+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56BA775B.9050109@ragged-software.com> <20160210003605.9A90F41C28F6@rock.dv.isc.org> <CAL0qLwZWaWbkfOpjceXcr0EYsQARjkjJsFWy3dDA0QS_V+J6pA@mail.gmail.com> <20160211065729.8775E41E14C4@rock.dv.isc.org> <CAL0qLwYffMDnCy8rmRqWzEm7Ypr-NExYeFH=sTm3X3Ad23wm+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:30:25 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYd5NehA4obTyX3Bf2nVFMKOMZeb7fFQT9v7h83ej2etTA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143f2ac2f8a50052b7f642c
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/7Hb4lNmgRGzJFyWHpGo9Ai23snw>
Cc: "Roy A. Gilmore" <rag@ragged-software.com>, "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.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 14:30:34 -0000

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>; wrote:
>
>> The evidence actually showed the transition was on track.
>
>
> After six years, it didn't appear to the working group that a transition
> of any kind was actually happening.
>

To reinforce Murray's comment, there was quite a bit of discussion in the
working group before the consensus to drop support for type 99. And there
was incredibly little implementation in the wild after ~6 years.

>
>
>> Nameservers support SPF were deployed.
>
>
> I thought it was pretty clear that this wasn't the problem.  The major
> obstacles were poor provisioning systems and faulty firewalls (as you
> pointed out, and as the experiments we did suggested).  The problem is that
> they are widespread, and that's unlikely to change.
>
> Libraries supporting SPF as well as TXT were being deployed.
>
>
> We specifically looked for this (especially the "being deployed" part)
> when preparing RFC6686, and found no evidence of it.  Exactly one source of
> type 99 queries was identified.  So, although there existed software
> support, nobody was using it.  We asked around, and nobody was planning to
> use it, either; many operators didn't even know what we were talking about.
>
>
>> None of this is captured in RFC6686.
>
>
> Because it wasn't supported by evidence.  If we had seen data to the
> contrary, we'd have written a different report.
>

It was captured in the working group discussions and the data that was
brought back to the working group clearly showed non significant
implementation in the wild.

Mike