Re: [spfbis] Proposed spf TXT record change

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Thu, 11 February 2016 05:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72ACE1A8BB2 for <>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:02:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xTClE7if_tfE for <>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:02:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B24141A8BB3 for <>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:02:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id c3so29061257vkb.3 for <>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:02:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=0k24defXxQgRwTck0IlxYmfvGQHUtAiaEKSox1mH3Ek=; b=W1ZnQyK5udyWuJj2YZUld21enO3W2140mQAe4UHV3LVhK7Fj/DRutb3GGWlY7UdxCy xOsb1ARRWfaQ9kBT+5WsAIjyEm9XsaKPj5uR0gcAbnFudF/1TjShc+RLIt7o0cUrqOHr r83nhASbNdlDnPB5nD1+uqa8VekwjjODWpwkuYl3MMuVWstxak+2BsdPuthJjS1OpiD7 mkOw0WJBSdBLGgu7/ZeHUVrRFt7jxkogKrztxxyMJE7gEbaEqSzd6P/don7VNh9Gd0Qm JrbhkTPmqLbxz80mrvovsEKwGBJzaKmEMO63gXUeFN4/2mdZ1SDAbdEyXgJLNuMR+/a6 rpog==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=0k24defXxQgRwTck0IlxYmfvGQHUtAiaEKSox1mH3Ek=; b=jm1gJ3LigsOYD70f3bmNACnM7MZHRTbMmSW5AiZBxD4RBmd20CRio3xyOHeLc5iBdm miPqEymf27aViOcYi6hfHNsou/gM2IvKd6xxC0nYZyH1YE3H0Y8lRAnlyihmpE2UhdQE zHHMW5houCW7gZxsEIlCTOVfnFLWDyINe49vLLqfOcdeWZCs8rU46dexnV1p1uAJEY6l YgeFhtGlpzYjPnOgX2NdhTWs5NvfkicnIwnkcQpsag33lVDIuHEHB0D/AEEwkykxwhU7 Gj0Jp7ppe53+WJkDP8INQDBBgDyaflX2bgU1KLYaQcJsigyMhIh1FPFGvimFasHvam2k b1rg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQFbuezF5B4I7/THCxUj3k631h2yKTY4MYzLydr99WTAOHSFa2pHSFViPt8nz+mcvSYFkH4KrfFFWrVtg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id x23mr34198324vkx.0.1455166946797; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:02:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:02:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20160210033104.98651.qmail@ary.lan> <>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:02:26 -0800
Message-ID: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
To: "Roy A. Gilmore" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11437e36f3ed9c052b77745e
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Proposed spf TXT record change
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 05:02:29 -0000

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Roy A. Gilmore <>;

> While I'm aware that there are "tens of thousands of mail systems all
> over the world", there are only a few SMTP implementations that are run
> on all those systems. You only have to get the SMTP developers on board.
> This is a trivial change (maybe not a one-liner, but, close), would
> simplify there code and make it more robust. This change could easily
> rolled out as a bug fix. Bug fixes are released all the time, and SHOULD
> be applied ASAP. If a server administrator is still using the same
> version of his/her SMTP implementation next year that he/she is using
> this year, he/she is not doing his/her job and should be fired.

In an ideal world, you'd be right.  But in reality, a lot of things don't
get updated until there's pain happening and the only solution is to
update.  After trying only a few domains off the top of my head, I found a
university mail server running an installation of sendmail dating back to
2006, 11 releases back from latest.

If SPF is working fine as-is, there's little impetus for operators to
change it.

You're right that software and RFCs can be modified, but is it worth the
effort to do either?

What's the pain point you're trying to solve that makes this worth doing?