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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Ah... Then the whole item 3 needs to be reworded to say what is actually
the case with respect to processing cost and accuracy.  If there actually
is a benefit to SPF here, say so.

Barry

On Sunday, April 22, 2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

>  Comments inline (alas):****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [e-mail] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '[e-mail]');> [mailto:[e-mail]<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[e-mail]');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Barry Leiba
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 22, 2012 1:58 PM
> *To:* [e-mail] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[e-mail]');>
> *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.]***
> *
>
> ** **
>