IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 24 April 2013 04:10 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 146D221F93AB for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.73
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.73 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.131, 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 8jgPaPZvoXyQ for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7EE21F8738 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id l13so6906175wie.16 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:10:15 -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=PB0WcXksFd41zluTOyipydPZpkphsnhwmTka6hxKGyo=; b=jeYhMqzrzJp2//gd4wyVQatpRc7qF20NjevKIguXDzXOjhJheqCNTthIu+cnxAzQVk xzVYX9G7sURI/p+L+xqxWld2axsAT3dhtOhmzke4kX5yE5sMBDfGXDBAlVqQjvZ++x16 VW2xZZxgXoAP7agoEkw2hWf6HORSMumDjM62khSdvLD+yy1fS/mSdwVq1mtaCDp15kAt ZUwSTDMsEfvuH6dw22fFjno84KNTW4I77R3SVWxykByYanYJ+G0AbtEQhGdsRJ9wTK3a KPHZYqXx/4mfIX3Py2R96mxJW631B8j9fpR0LV9hSOdt28G+/Hicpwx8uifVD8rU/np1 ZV1A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.92.229 with SMTP id cp5mr2079044wib.20.1366776615340; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.36.176 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130424002629.13505.qmail@joyce.lan>
References: <CAL0qLwYkudUHYrGmsHyOLsB76j=Zrn5NCCacVnd1ncG=sQNmyg@mail.gmail.com> <20130424002629.13505.qmail@joyce.lan>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:10:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbwYY0GgsYuKJsmym_GsR2kWPt0RTSAG+ovBcX99TeLZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043c094ea5140c04db137a16"
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 04:10:18 -0000

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?"

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email