IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] Proof of non-deployment [root@primary.se: Cron <root@primary> /usr/local/libexec/spf-txt.sh]

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 07 October 2014 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83C421A88C8 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 14:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ewiSOrVVcw11 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 14:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-x233.google.com (mail-vc0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C2181A884C for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 14:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id im17so5624417vcb.38 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=iFdnaBLUa4cOEKt7T0RGrC27+vGodDDpvHbuDA2T5wY=; b=PXKzc0eJK678GFCLCFtIKYj/mnRQUaFouMvMqbOxrKc98frPpnWJjTpVjp1Aqpeaji DQQKRPHuKi1ABcpZArbovVsGcyyEiWuWRimH54kIBk6DgoxXuBEafY4g5hXP3T8ELGO4 N/NIHHGFw6KZcL24g+492lsdIZM6yG9OsqV8TTw89gM1mmB6xgaGzOKUfmeu66uRiBVB tIFnvTUIe+Oe9ZSj8000EXwp8BpzqCStzGTDjgaww/IWbvbn0UjzYsrqtb6IWxQY+CfQ dVgqPzHoXlywJuikj9Sr2tdb+xvKsWfINMihUV0z3BB+d34HUUTccJ4wWNY1fyyE5p89 HD7g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.227.39 with SMTP id rx7mr5030945vdc.13.1412718847711; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.79.66 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 14:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20141007212657.DB75220DE476@rock.dv.isc.org>
References: <20141007063737.GA28581@besserwisser.org> <D6213AB4-ABB2-45C5-AA52-59369B03B88F@anvilwalrusden.com> <CAL0qLwYpA_snEkjnCeXFcxf6kzt-8rF1+Uovypn1yNe+5VVB+w@mail.gmail.com> <20141007164221.GF19697@mx1.yitter.info> <20141007212657.DB75220DE476@rock.dv.isc.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:54:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwY+VkAG+LN+8-P=mz+NZwACYsh+nnwvZG3if6bHVg0NRQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01161ba615e0b30504dc3dcc"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/L3DvdJcHjBx3utPDLg_-otz0MCM
Cc: "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Proof of non-deployment [root@primary.se: Cron <root@primary> /usr/local/libexec/spf-txt.sh]
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 07 Oct 2014 21:54:10 -0000

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

> The working group got told repeatedly that they just had to wait
> as new code went from being written to being deployed.  They got
> given data that showed type spf queries were increasing.  They just
> refused to listen and used the stupid excuse of type txt not "working"
> with type spf to claim that they had to abandon the transition.
>

Sorry, but "refused to listen" is false.  Your position was heard and
extensively debated.  The working group simply did not concur.

When you jump to the end state of SPF only, of course it won't work
> with TXT.  However there was nothing wrong with that.  Also there
> was nothing preventing people publishing both types if they wanted
> to during the transition.  There was nothing preventing the transition
> continuing.
>

It would be wonderful to have any evidence other than DNS RRTYPE counts to
support the idea that there was any such organized transition in progress.
Perhaps you or Mans can share from whom all these new type 99 queries are
coming?

Meanwhile, I have not heard one peep from anyone in any of the email
communities to which I am connected that there's an attempt to move toward
type 99, not in 2012 and not today.  In fact, the contrary is probably true
given that the main open source implementation has (as I understand it)
since removed its type 99 query code.  Does anyone still paying attention
to this list have any such information?  I'm genuinely curious.  I've put
out some feelers to the places where I think the increased type 99 queries
might be originating.  I've yet to hear back.

Scott, I can't think of anyone more connected to SPF than you are: Are you
aware of such a transition?


> The real reason that most of the working group didn't want to move
> from TXT and resented that DNS people said use a seperate type for
> this and resisted changing things.


I don't think I can parse this sentence.  I suspect though that Appendix A
of RFC6686 better characterizes the situation than "resented"; the
resistance to which you refer was a lot more pragmatic than emotional.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email