Re: [spfbis] Proposed spf TXT record change

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 10 February 2016 03:31 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 8ED801B3638 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:31:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.664
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, KHOP_DYNAMIC=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 1n_1jnvFi6Ih for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:31:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 541061B3639 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:31:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 45832 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2016 03:31:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2016 03:31:27 -0000
Date: 10 Feb 2016 03:31:04 -0000
Message-ID: <20160210033104.98651.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <56BAAD71.8080009@ragged-software.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/ANZNc32PvOH2jmEArgockPR0mzE>
Cc: rag@ragged-software.com
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: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 03:31:29 -0000

In article <56BAAD71.8080009@ragged-software.com>; you write:
>I hope I don't come across as argumentative, that is not my intention. I
>don't have any idea how these workgroups work. I'm curious about a
>behavior that I THINK (I could be wrong) is incorrect with spf, and
>trying to learn, so I'm asking what I think are good questions.

Old joke:

Q. How could God create the world in six days?
A. He didn't have an installed base.

SPF works well enough that there is no incentive for anyone to change
the existing running code that is in tens of thousands of mail systems
all over the world.  If we were doing SPF from scratch, there's all
sorts of stuff we'd do differently, but like I said, it's a decade too
late.

R's,
John