Re: [spfbis] Proposed spf TXT record change

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Wed, 10 February 2016 04:14 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@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 CB4511B369A for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:14:55 -0800 (PST)
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 6Cp1vKXG_kuV for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:14:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x234.google.com (mail-vk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79F461B3698 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:14:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id e6so5279897vkh.2 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:14:54 -0800 (PST)
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 :content-type; bh=1pm+ef5TJ128/JaVJfy2TSFoeC6ClGfDdgnabajfyXQ=; b=vBMI0xyyXQpyBIQfKU7Ik1nNWHuu4wdd1ZAutmxVKYQPe798TB0LkJD1TPHI0I7r2x Ea6ZwqlQ7vT6DcIgojMo9f+r3+w2UdyL67+I+nzq/lOgtasQKVmt0Uo2EyYeReneQjY3 kLqsTZXeg/ze2FB5Hz79eHTYAsuropPsxY8Un8BIEFZ7F+eoNPcVGvXs5RmjxvYNjtf5 GrvLtOn5ztxz64ItOljFm/1yA4SL8ZXE9ingChXEyBg/RQ6WkMPIprrzpIqGIbNUJwIJ akV9SL2BF0Uf9ZC3bPHQE8YmwlMTZ8zmXY45WV4m5Jzb8mCG2hvA4yaEEgA56dehR4EM NNUA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=1pm+ef5TJ128/JaVJfy2TSFoeC6ClGfDdgnabajfyXQ=; b=Qxz9mNaGn2zIw0umcl/cgjeQSG1jMcwnzdGeE61VprUzAiQqNiUT1o5MAwignmD6xS Rkj14YDy39uwr6wzJaI1G2XVyyjjPvj0n3MutWWb4KeziKB3uZ2WF6I4qwBcO9O4ncYF zLi8x42fnmCuBUQRD/lRzJUcYxyK4gtCp9PaA7k5ROem74zMlyjO2KMvfkNDemzt2ISm PY06uolQ+XjPb59m9oFXJ5RT312xKlN+4ZO9XzxnhzK4lq1y8dQHWSQqbIfBAlWHzs6d cCTM33+XtmQ2o65zhi91bfapaEvgfzQQ12hzPjpmS+s3MwoouivQj2WnYm7GfMsqKfYC GARQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSwMzvZkGHUYZsurzSc1I66rDKFPBNdPOhPB5egIEuXpZsK8rWZyz0+NnhOxlCK06bKDMO9OXSSQ5/lsA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.47.205 with SMTP id v196mr28003082vkv.18.1455077693567; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:14:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.32.194 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:14:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56BAB3D8.8060607@ragged-software.com>
References: <20160210022525.98482.qmail@ary.lan> <56BAB3D8.8060607@ragged-software.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 23:14:53 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYfSSiRBRqC6b-ZGGOGh=Gf9aprvDTbyek9EcQ0SK67NsQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
To: "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143920e0bbaa5052b62ad96
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/UmpbyJq1xo2YjzgzGsGgZZ0S2uA>
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 04:14:56 -0000

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Roy A. Gilmore <rag@ragged-software.com>;
wrote:

> Why should it matter if I'm a decade too late? If I'm right (and I'm not
> saying that I am), why shouldn't the behavior be changed. RFC's aren't
> set in stone, they are updated and/or obsoleted all the time. This
> proposed change is trivial to implement.
>
>
The fact that you believe this to be a trivial change to implement makes
clear that you don't understand what is actually involved. This horse has
been beaten so much it is only fit for the glue factory. You are absolutely
right that _spf would be a better approach... if there was not already a
large installed base to consider. SPF works (for some definition of works).
The change you are proposing sets up interoperability issues that we have
dealt with before.