IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Mon, 23 April 2012 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@gmail.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 BC37B21F84E4 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 W0q0sdtCV2B7 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50CF021F849B for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbbrp16 with SMTP id rp16so3854324pbb.31 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lforEDMHdw/dEm/xzYofEPSzJ8cIWdyer6GvEnzmiyM=; b=btW7XqvMety2gpd5FxwSGEXxmC7aV4IdPlUrXKn3MX4dF0dmEV20SLp+oDFDoPT9Nu SdN5h1LoGWBrFz8ihX27cGj8cKACOoLz7hwZbtsTWDeR94A2oMeo1UQp7I3Da8zbN+1T +HnigE+X3qPPSvJG0aG03WC+UMVTM9OWcHkL2tNNL3YciC7w4sl6KFPvzBero4u/mFv5 Eh3vNZFFJC39hi7V8FRSy5dN5u/PGu/LiNv8lcmsMBtXCPw+mdtdTrYzOH1h/coWLL/p 4KmOthVB5M/kg/BsXHu2cDvqvjrSC/9zxMfcYLkIjiUH1PSKa8URHjqOGmW8PeXqHjfz dMkw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.218.198 with SMTP id pi6mr36249206pbc.121.1335185879988; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.217.105 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FED0D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <CAC4RtVAV5PH+VMzppVxAQgGq0f28ARN846e17G_8sbLCThm-KA@mail.gmail.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FED0D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:57:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYf2KNLsqzrrM39bWo1Z1Fun1qEiNMYstLf2ZCaaUDSzmA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:58:00 -0000

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> wrote:
> Comments inline (alas):
>
>
>
> From: spfbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:spfbis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Barry Leiba
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 1:58 PM
> To: spfbis@ietf.org
> Subject: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05
>
>
>
> OLD
>
>    3.  Although the two mechanisms often used different email addresses
>
>        as the subject being evaluated, no data collected showed any
>
>        substantial operational benefit (e.g., cheaper processing,
>
>        improved accuracy) to using Sender-ID over SPF.
>
>
>
> I suggest "to using either mechanism over the other."
>
>
> [MSK: I don’t think that’s correct.  Sender ID has a substantially higher
> processing cost given that it requires accepting the DATA part of the
> message and has an obviously higher cost to extract the various identifiers
> the PRA algorithm considers.  SPF, purely compute-wise, is cheaper.
> However, their accuracy is comparable.  If we want to be clear, we can say
> their accuracies are about the same, but SPF is operationally cheaper.]
>
>
>
>

Murray,

It is absolutely incorrect to say that their accuracies are about the
same. I can consistently game PRA to get a neutral outcome regardless
of what the originating domain publishes in it's record. If there is a
Sender field then that is the PRA per the spec. I cannot do the the
same for SPF.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email