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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Tue, 24 April 2012 19:42 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 04D0321F87F9 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 W18hMU4oAkAb for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C01121F87F8 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 1ssR1j0010as01C01ssRPG; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:52:25 -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=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=w0_tcEhzsP4A:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=fZKcf9osSv6LYp3yFSIA:9 a=6DF3SCX4pQ9Y-s-a5U4A:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA: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; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:52:04 -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: AQHNIMqwFmLLWp0VJEuOTXJcBTjdz5anwbsggAETc4D//6ThEIAAgQKAgAEzQQCAAATXIA==
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:52:03 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928100C3D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <CAC4RtVAV5PH+VMzppVxAQgGq0f28ARN846e17G_8sbLCThm-KA@mail.gmail.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FED0D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAJ4XoYf2KNLsqzrrM39bWo1Z1Fun1qEiNMYstLf2ZCaaUDSzmA@mail.gmail.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FF5C4@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAJ4XoYe1Vkge=2iWrFgzRyZL-XVt-7bhUCf=xJHhvZcR6mGFiA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335286345; bh=CzCi/trX1TfU2aohxHuhqn8y90zKlN+lwHvmkTVVW+o=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=r627wikSh165B6UosIZ6D3G8fyTxmXKl+YScwYOUGntgXl6I1yTDkZw/vwiIZ2YxV xUvWWz3g5woL8kK9adfhCrBRTjFWqkj1AvoMdLIIqiPQtr3guPFumglpvLCXu/S/AF qVR2muP1LVU/TsEQ/v+DeHAvaUSQMx+vpqUiWdDc=
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: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:42:01 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:47 AM
> To: spfbis@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05
> 
> If self-selection of the data renders a data set invalid, then the
> entire document is invalid.  The data we have come from a handful
> volunteers who did the work to construct and execute the surveys and
> report findings.  We have the fortune that at least two of them are
> sizable participants (Hotmail and Cisco).
> 
> If you would like to run such a survey yourself and ensure your view of
> the world is also represented, or procure such surveys from whatever
> set of sources you think would make the results more even, then by all
> means please do so.

Moreover, one will always be able to argue that some corner of the email ecosystem was excluded from our report unless we get universal participation.  That means this task is impossible.  I'd like to publish this before I expire.

-MSK