Re: [spfbis] Proposed spf TXT record change

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 10 February 2016 03:35 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 E78BF1B3643 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:35:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.664
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, KHOP_DYNAMIC=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 wuv6iACgRyvt for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:35:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 067FB1B3642 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:35:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 46260 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2016 03:35:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2016 03:35:35 -0000
Date: 10 Feb 2016 03:35:13 -0000
Message-ID: <20160210033513.98688.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <56BAAD71.8080009@ragged-software.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/_uv8YEtSWtzA8mkB3xuaslkIaPk>
Cc: rag@ragged-software.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: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 03:35:38 -0000

PS:

>As to spurious interoperablity arguments, that's easy, set a transition
>period ...

That was the plan with the type 99 SPF record.  See RFC 6686 to see
how well that worked.

There's huge pressure for people to move from IPv4 to IPv6 since the
price of IPv4 addresses has in the past few years increased from
roughly zero to about $10 per address while IPv6 is still nearly free
and always will be.  But it'll still be decades before IPv4 goes awy.

R's,
John