Re: [spfbis] Proposed spf TXT record change

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Thu, 11 February 2016 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
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 ED90B1B3AF0 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 13:50:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ucANWy1xnH-D for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 13:50:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.santronics.com (ntbbs.winserver.com [208.247.131.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7EB21B3A65 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 13:50:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=608; t=1455227431; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=0JyxjzBFeYAhVruCLxC28egaCaQ=; b=aIPZNpcJAgHbaE8MFm6mXRMgDcBwZ33BGGjlEoMkjPYF9RNun/O5kS/fPvvC8m Dl77TyGsKbLftPWWoY8GEmXXw/KZId2rtNMYCKGRwuibENE0lZMMGVMr5L2V9+IA IFuWgQ19qMhoNRPs7Z30ftxdrsIYz/aIOQJt6HVKv6Be4=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.5) for spfbis@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:50:31 -0500
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; adsp=pass policy=all author.d=isdg.net asl.d=beta.winserver.com; dmarc=pass policy=none author.d=isdg.net signer.d=beta.winserver.com (atps signer);
Received: from beta.winserver.com ([208.247.131.23]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.5) with ESMTP id 3386587406.1.3844; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:50:30 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=608; t=1455227357; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=kuIh6Ba 5IhTGKTFnUq0UwxV5Xe8wbvOE8jTMu0wMoGI=; b=NinK4rzWB3qoHjOB/kPoBg9 aB7jJGe+H0WW28YV1yoesrvOoHPjZf70mPwQfoO9a0OE1gMhDJfEvChyR7rBd+e6 ENYqdFgRxsHzRWa5do5L7O7THuj7Ckq9Jua62BGmMkU3Roxy/C3uA5Xz6q5LiR+5 FnXdmKD5bb4srBbFjMgU=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.5) for spfbis@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:49:17 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([99.121.5.8]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.5) with ESMTP id 3386641890.9.36480; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:49:17 -0500
Message-ID: <56BD0217.9040506@isdg.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:50:15 -0500
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, dcrocker@bbiw.net
References: <20160210022525.98482.qmail@ary.lan> <56BABD0C.8070504@dcrocker.net> <20160210050940.58CBD41C61C4@rock.dv.isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160210050940.58CBD41C61C4@rock.dv.isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/Tq0xlbEcD7ikxupNUYZfQXIFz-g>
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: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:50:46 -0000

On 2/10/2016 12:09 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> 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.

+100000.

Its all wasted wasted overhead especially when relaxed policies (with 
no hard rejection capabilities).    If you are going to do this, 
please make it for hard policies.

-- 
HLS