Re: [spfbis] Proposed spf TXT record change

"Roy A. Gilmore" <rag@ragged-software.com> Wed, 10 February 2016 03:51 UTC

Return-Path: <rag@ragged-software.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 E2F621B3661 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:51:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 Saiu9p8j77VZ for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:51:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atl4mhob07.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob07.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84F051B3660 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:51:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.208]) by atl4mhob07.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u1A3prSw008212 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 22:51:53 -0500
Received: (qmail 14736 invoked by uid 0); 10 Feb 2016 03:51:53 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 107.209.217.9
X-Authenticated-UID: rag@ragged-software.com
Received: from unknown (HELO thor.internal.ragged-software.com) (rag@ragged-software.com@107.209.217.9) by 0 with ESMTPA; 10 Feb 2016 03:51:53 -0000
To: spfbis@ietf.org
References: <20160210022525.98482.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "Roy A. Gilmore" <rag@ragged-software.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Organization: RAGged Software
Message-ID: <56BAB3D8.8060607@ragged-software.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:51:52 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160210022525.98482.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/YQkF5ccZR2trBCGSeDUpPIY48nM>
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 03:51:57 -0000

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.

On 02/09/2016 06:25 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.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> spfbis mailing list
> spfbis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis