Re: [spfbis] Proposed spf TXT record change

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 10 February 2016 05:09 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 790231B36FD for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 21:09:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 DJ6CIoZHdvx4 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 21:09:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E986B1B36FE for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 21:09:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 722F21FCAE6; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 05:09:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CC48160047; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 05:09:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B775160048; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 05:09:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id uXoOjNIby91e; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 05:09:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c110-21-49-25.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [110.21.49.25]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DDDD5160047; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 05:09:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58CBD41C61C4; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:09:40 +1100 (EST)
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20160210022525.98482.qmail@ary.lan> <56BABD0C.8070504@dcrocker.net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:31:08 -0800." <56BABD0C.8070504@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:09:40 +1100
Message-Id: <20160210050940.58CBD41C61C4@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/OmtjMDGPiQOkX3SzOP8aFNtCk2I>
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, rag@ragged-software.com, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Proposed spf TXT record change
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 10 Feb 2016 05:09:49 -0000

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