IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 24 April 2013 05:21 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 355B221F93B3 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 D44Lqn-6gGay for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x236.google.com (mail-wi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A88E121F944C for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id m6so1647436wiv.15 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=tjXraM72S6bWHQcRHwo43CaU0zmYJvIiK3lymzR0pFU=; b=kUf7CPBMiLge2OtUZrDeB87c3E6cFFkqWoSAIzfEWQDkHdHptkqwhSQM8rkULF0UPW TQ9QMbEiB49V7UL8IdZCHaU/T6ggRmQ7v80NLE6h4zD15sFANu5kXlbakFD7BQpiTR8N sWcelQgttgeihS/CK5p17QGRFZP1MlVSCpAElhJ6F8hplVHa3YugxrvKr3Qw4di9vDQV XnBgyhyxlHXgKGLpjBNcbRzGfPRqK9lqzSMxqpWxW7kTVq9z7gcaBqNQBcM4I6gdxYdw SYBOJF3SUw+esK23PK8F33OHhLonGL+0KQJfgZnVUNfz8y3G6Bsvv7Rjwr3+25yMsCrm 40OQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.79.69 with SMTP id h5mr42452534wix.14.1366780881793; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.36.176 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1460222.e6VXMsC181@scott-latitude-e6320>
References: <CAL0qLwYkudUHYrGmsHyOLsB76j=Zrn5NCCacVnd1ncG=sQNmyg@mail.gmail.com> <20130424002629.13505.qmail@joyce.lan> <CAL0qLwbwYY0GgsYuKJsmym_GsR2kWPt0RTSAG+ovBcX99TeLZA@mail.gmail.com> <1460222.e6VXMsC181@scott-latitude-e6320>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:21:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbiqPW40PATpN2O87Mv=0ybm=MQeVzUVynkZpoNyT1_KA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043c062ef1fb3704db1478d0"
Cc: "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>
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, 24 Apr 2013 05:21:26 -0000

Sure, add to the end of 4.6.4:

The number 10 used as the limit above was chosen during early
implementations and has shown to produce reasonable results both in terms
of giving complete answers when used properly and preventing abuse
otherwise.  The choice was largely arbitrary, but it is now used as the
mandatory limit so that SPF results are consistent across implementations.

(I'm guessing that history is correct; feel free to make corrections as
needed.)


On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 09:10:15 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:26 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> > > >I imagine you're going to say that 10 is the limit imposed by most
> > > >implementations, but shouldn't we say that there should be a finite,
> > > >perhaps configurable limit, and operational experience has shown that
> 10
> > >
> > > is
> > >
> > > >a reasonable default?
> > >
> > > If everyone doesn't have the same limit, an SPF check might fail at a
> > > site with a lower limit and the identical check would succeed at one
> > > with a higher limit.  The limit has been 10 for a long time and I
> > > don't see any reason to change it now.
> >
> > I'd rather we say something like this.  Otherwise some neophyte will read
> > this and think "What's so special about 10?"
>
> OK.  Would you please propose text?
>
> Scott K
> _______________________________________________
> spfbis mailing list
> spfbis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email