Re: [spfbis] Proposed spf TXT record change

In message <56BABD0C.8070504@dcrocker.net>, Dave Crocker writes:
> 
> 
> On 2/9/2016 6:25 PM, John Levine wrote:
> >> I think the spf information should be placed in a TXT record
> >> attached to a _spf selector (e.g. _spf.example.com).
> >
> > You're right, but you're also a decade too late.  Forget it.
> 
> 
> +1

-100000 _spf was never right.

> Yes, it should have been done that way.  No it does not seem possible to 
> get the installed base to move to a different model.

No, you just needed a longer time frame to transition than this
group was willing to accept for a organic transition or to actually
publish a timeframe.  A simple instruction to nameserver developers
to "automatically publish a SPF record if a TXT spf records exist"
would have push the transition along enourmously by getting a large
amount of SPF records out there.  Actively sending out messages to
those only publishing TXT spf records would have also helped.

No one said "we want this transition done in N years" so it didn't
happen in that amount of time and there there where complaints that
the transition failed when the transition didn't happen overnight.

Expectations where not set so no one could meet them.

Mark

> d/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spfbis mailing list
> spfbis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org