IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] #24: RFC 4408: Reasonable DNS error limits

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 22 August 2012 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 B7FA621F8680 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_AVOID=2.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cK3HZNcwnu3F for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FD1221F86B2 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.232.45]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7MMxCxx019735 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1345676373; bh=P2CZuKLLVnFH6P1RAORxdk6NzwVZI/Gibcw45kO8Ifg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=tcfNX5YPBh/1YTSYpn5ykXz7zHtkiE5CD27triTc3D91KZLsHnUS2jarx7OoZ4R5r rDyxJc+AHPA7k1AizpHljvf/A+TZz1VkLDJNXj7yzsG9fvmSqUrRIkd2FBx8A1LO4P Dl8J0lduYckcIhei4fN11SsfTcOlh+8R6iWygOVU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1345676373; i=@elandsys.com; bh=P2CZuKLLVnFH6P1RAORxdk6NzwVZI/Gibcw45kO8Ifg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=LgNxmj67OrvoZiohO7BHpGqFKnqYCSxGg8EPxpzgboeg3ozqnVVVMRz9ZxFcP0Uad g9qYmU8k08ySEhMfdNng2JLJu1AQsoqphaCV2DWPCv4ahOVUg/OCZPht87+28quJE2 S6O4KeCYH8E7WmUUiaDmGvPmE8Ca2xaoIcH/OhRU=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120822155203.0a1090e8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:59:02 -0700
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, Philip Gladstone <pgladstone@cisco.com>, spfbis@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <2165564.7dxLrmajVl@scott-latitude-e6320>
References: <061.d98693d6d49da2032936529b51acdb1f@tools.ietf.org> <4F6116A6.2090307@mail-abuse.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120822140310.0a66f4c0@resistor.net> <2165564.7dxLrmajVl@scott-latitude-e6320>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] #24: RFC 4408: Reasonable DNS error limits
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, 22 Aug 2012 22:59:39 -0000

Hello,

I am addressing this message to the persons who did the surveys for RFC 6686.

At 15:45 22-08-2012, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>In general, I think that the current processing limits are 
>reasonable and well
>documented and the text in the security considerations is appropriate.  It
>might be prudent to provide some additional constraint, provided we can do it
>in a backward compatible way.  This is discussed in:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00850.html
>
>It would be good to know if the information that's needed to assess 
>the impact
>of such a void lookup limit can be garnered from the existing surveys and if
>the authors of one or more of the surveys would be up for gathering the data
>for us?

Could you please help with the above?

SPFBIS WG participants are also welcome to comment on this issue.

Regards.
S. Moonesamy
SPFBIS WG co-chair

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status