IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Mon, 23 April 2012 05:02 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 4653F21F84DF for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.637
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.637 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 lgLbx1nmqGSF for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1263921F84C2 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 1H3C1j0010as01C01H3C20; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:03:12 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=fNu7LOme c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=ldJM1g7oyCcA:10 a=w0_tcEhzsP4A:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=gdJdk1cwjiL5HxsOaA8A:9 a=T7UO-ZstTS2PPFDYeXkA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=SW0DC1kVWCxFyQ5Ln38A:9 a=o8SeYtZ8310z8KSlTWUA:7 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:02:52 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05
Thread-Index: AQHNIMqwFmLLWp0VJEuOTXJcBTjdz5anwbsggACLzYD//4ztsA==
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:02:51 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FEDE1@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <CAC4RtVAV5PH+VMzppVxAQgGq0f28ARN846e17G_8sbLCThm-KA@mail.gmail.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FED0D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAC4RtVA8i1MrZ1+vEicstYyDDJu=1N=BW-9_UtPgL1QrUm0fvQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVA8i1MrZ1+vEicstYyDDJu=1N=BW-9_UtPgL1QrUm0fvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FEDE1exchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335157392; bh=sRuI2868gFheuk1Yt80hjRKo2USGeT3U9Ga8U5eoV2M=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=ayphv+z4gVgEcOA+LoE2LFeA8OX9+CBdudsZmRJP5A5BcbLzb4JmNd2/w5vWPXgaJ ehUAF/FWzX4qqtcTk1BvF8L7MFOgbDoRuyyVBt3umO/SdZP/NuZDZEgLWfoJwsKHqW qOR/6/+aS09XXL2njHd4bl7k858WrDH3ImpyQCxI=
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:02:54 -0000

Actually, I don't think we need to get into the benefits of one over the other.  We're merely measuring and reporting on adoption since publication, not the "why" part.  That's already covered in the "people voted with their feet" bit.

So the net change, I think, is to remove the mention of cheaper processing, and just say the accuracy of the two is comparable.

From: spfbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:spfbis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 9:52 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email