Re: [spfbis] Proof of non-deployment [[e-mail]: Cron <root@primary> /usr/local/libexec/spf-txt.sh]

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On October 7, 2014 5:54:07 PM EDT, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Mark Andrews <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> The working group got told repeatedly that they just had to wait
>> as new code went from being written to being deployed.  They got
>> given data that showed type spf queries were increasing.  They just
>> refused to listen and used the stupid excuse of type txt not
>"working"
>> with type spf to claim that they had to abandon the transition.
>>
>
>Sorry, but "refused to listen" is false.  Your position was heard and
>extensively debated.  The working group simply did not concur.
>
>When you jump to the end state of SPF only, of course it won't work
>> with TXT.  However there was nothing wrong with that.  Also there
>> was nothing preventing people publishing both types if they wanted
>> to during the transition.  There was nothing preventing the
>transition
>> continuing.
>>
>
>It would be wonderful to have any evidence other than DNS RRTYPE counts
>to
>support the idea that there was any such organized transition in
>progress.
>Perhaps you or Mans can share from whom all these new type 99 queries
>are
>coming?
>
>Meanwhile, I have not heard one peep from anyone in any of the email
>communities to which I am connected that there's an attempt to move
>toward
>type 99, not in 2012 and not today.  In fact, the contrary is probably
>true
>given that the main open source implementation has (as I understand it)
>since removed its type 99 query code.  Does anyone still paying
>attention
>to this list have any such information?  I'm genuinely curious.  I've
>put
>out some feelers to the places where I think the increased type 99
>queries
>might be originating.  I've yet to hear back.
>
>Scott, I can't think of anyone more connected to SPF than you are: Are
>you
>aware of such a transition?
>
I'm not particularly interested in spending time relitigating the issue with people throwing ad hominem attacks around. I have my opinion on whose listening skills were deficient.  

The working group decided and it's done.   Revisiting it now doesn't make any sense. 

Scott K

>> The real reason that most of the working group didn't want to move
>> from TXT and resented that DNS people said use a seperate type for
>> this and resisted changing things.
>
>
>I don't think I can parse this sentence.  I suspect though that
>Appendix A
>of RFC6686 better characterizes the situation than "resented"; the
>resistance to which you refer was a lot more pragmatic than emotional.
>
>-MSK
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>spfbis mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis