IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14

Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com> Wed, 24 April 2013 04:33 UTC

Return-Path: <spf2@kitterman.com>
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 0FF6821F93AB for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 vMek55ffRzwq for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5794E21F9380 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4DA20E40FE; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 00:33:56 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1366778036; bh=lZaKwbtxiESceDDpASipKP4K/uB5ANmp1IpfTG1r4oM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Wjb6LQWQDbViB1zCOtmlxMbYckLf96FN0xt08BoLtMc+3CQHKABtmG5abnwN688De gbwnHvTs12XtD6o5QOnq+sRuJD5HUB8F9nrX6r/7lp2SVx8GjXYi11UqRN+8/fRyL0 h8gZJoPdgke3T+R2GuCLlTw0HKv7LH2MrhF21bpg=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6EA4620E4085; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 00:33:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 00:33:51 -0400
Message-ID: <1460222.e6VXMsC181@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.5.0-27-generic; KDE/4.9.5; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbwYY0GgsYuKJsmym_GsR2kWPt0RTSAG+ovBcX99TeLZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwYkudUHYrGmsHyOLsB76j=Zrn5NCCacVnd1ncG=sQNmyg@mail.gmail.com> <20130424002629.13505.qmail@joyce.lan> <CAL0qLwbwYY0GgsYuKJsmym_GsR2kWPt0RTSAG+ovBcX99TeLZA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14
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: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 04:33:58 -0000

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 09:10:15 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:26 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> > >I imagine you're going to say that 10 is the limit imposed by most
> > >implementations, but shouldn't we say that there should be a finite,
> > >perhaps configurable limit, and operational experience has shown that 10
> > 
> > is
> > 
> > >a reasonable default?
> > 
> > If everyone doesn't have the same limit, an SPF check might fail at a
> > site with a lower limit and the identical check would succeed at one
> > with a higher limit.  The limit has been 10 for a long time and I
> > don't see any reason to change it now.
> 
> I'd rather we say something like this.  Otherwise some neophyte will read
> this and think "What's so special about 10?"

OK.  Would you please propose text?

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email