IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 07 June 2012 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 1E09721F865F for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 P6lUU0jevQnw for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3FC721F8671 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1339087265; bh=f4ffxRgBnbVEmxxkoQi60Zm7QDkf5znX/iXFvUij4ZI=; l=675; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Lxpv3lnn3Fo3hkpuXJKTzKGF22eyhrUHE+hCO3rVVqJbgDhacpwqLVq1er9QnrBie OWoiShdKNmWMt84HShS2OTcm66rzXb4ziej1zGrBKykbPu0/W8qam9Lsu8czRT8+t5 t8V9bHO5ihzK8gUxr3v3W+vBxTqFs1mGoNx++9wY=
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:41:05 +0200 id 00000000005DC033.000000004FD0D9A1.0000021B
Message-ID: <4FD0D9A0.90109@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:41:04 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: spfbis@ietf.org
References: <4FCF32B5.7010102@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120606215706.0aa1d6c0@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120606215706.0aa1d6c0@elandnews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt
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: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:41:08 -0000

Ooops, re-posting...

On Thu 07/Jun/2012 07:28:40 +0200 S Moonesamy wrote:

>> Does "SPF+TXT replies" mean that both an SPF and a TXT record exists
>> for these FQDNs? If so, are they identical? (Presumably they should be.)
> 
> Yes to the first question.  The working group didn't evaluate the second.

Actually, Philip evaluated the second question as well, mentioning
that some 17% of type99 records differ from the corresponding type16.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00354.html

FWIW, I repeated a similar test for 24,853 domains in the DNSWL list,
and found that only 3% of the 587 domains that use both types had such
difference.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email