Re: [spfbis] Proposed spf TXT record change

"Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart@gathman.org> Wed, 10 February 2016 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <SRS0=52O0n=OJ==stuart@gathman.org>
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 BAE2D1B2EF2 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:25:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 TQBgNFFMkJym for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:25:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.gathman.org (mail.gathman.org [IPv6:2001:470:5:c85::10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AD321B2EDB for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:25:47 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: mail.gathman.org; auth=pass (CRAM-MD5 sslbits=256) smtp.auth=stuart
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gathman.org; i=@gathman.org; q=dns/txt; s=default; t=1455132344; h=Date : From : To : cc : Subject : In-Reply-To : Message-ID : References : MIME-Version : Content-Type : Date : From : Subject; bh=fdI+DJ0O5unSEvqPo+6kNrE4Kd8aMBDacfdgwW+4jUA=; b=W9kpmAZqcnWJBw6HwUQpNkGbBn0Cyq/oI8SF7T2HHzIderjQfCQ2ZhBsLLM1Li/YyfX026 ZIu/bhSBdeap7Zd63RPiCN5HXZZ1mI1yQXyrG1FpLJH2Czez/ZP3AXD3RPURRDroqgclQbxa gRf7QXC3c0auUH010chM/3Uo7lX+U=
Received: from sdgathman-1-pt.tunnel.tserv13.ash1.ipv6.he.net (sdgathman-1-pt.tunnel.tserv13.ash1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:7:809::2] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.gathman.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u1AJPgq0016590 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:25:43 -0500
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:25:42 -0500 (EST)
From: "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart@gathman.org>
To: "Roy A. Gilmore" <rag@ragged-software.com>
In-Reply-To: <56BAB8C1.50809@ragged-software.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1602101423190.10932@fairfax.gathman.org>
References: <20160210033104.98651.qmail@ary.lan> <56BAB8C1.50809@ragged-software.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/kwtbPic_6IvEE7awjHQYZWlKLMs>
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org
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 19:25:48 -0000

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Roy A. Gilmore wrote:

> 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

Changing the SPD implementation is trivial.  I've done it, a long
time ago.  I voted to keep type99 for the production RFC.  Actually
working efficiently with braindead DNS servers is *not* trivial.
I've tried to do it, and gave up.  I still have TYPE99 code
in my SPF implementation, and I periodically turn it on to see
if a certain huge DNS server provider is still screwing up . . .