Re: [spfbis] Proposed spf TXT record change

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Thu, 11 February 2016 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00691B31FB for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:03:55 -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 xLJkV3QSkQIN for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:03:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDC281B31FE for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:03:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id k196so37064366vka.0 for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:03:52 -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=zrP9D0w2+/Lb83GjpLQMrvAbk2leH9WJzMyJrBSP6Ag=; b=upFmra6teVq8kn7MSBpzGERHgOcigpl/ivssNfqh0Txfq6eUjpcOk/MdfQH25NMjPi cF3zRTuNhdnBlkDSustw2qvNhMnezI40cVTSp4zSuonzmp8VLwI7dQ8qAUaZFBeiYQLR jy6EKpdOG+rR7kakVJ/+dBZh3oE4awf0ufPIZk398o4HFtWCGFi1FIyQrSGl9VmOjIrR J4EMPMlKpygGRFMMo2ATJlycRJBjUte1iEznusRyixrcbhArmmMPaFCtXdvhHKgpFcee oWcaYouyR0d3Q2A8WalhTJMkdggSBBHGYbfo3ZBU0NMGkfoyiDYGFOzo1mgScTAzgt26 Rj7Q==
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=zrP9D0w2+/Lb83GjpLQMrvAbk2leH9WJzMyJrBSP6Ag=; b=GmycGBrixv9b58cJ7jBUdotEa+gleteuR6da6vlk+IoOnsV26rQkxKamHGZt7eFm1J 7NDzyzEUQJS54tQLP9oLh5C5tN7C5wX/E68yZe7MnhT4v5CU0kOLnGib8euSDkptNyoy UJQ5+1dJoieIgf19oouavvTN60Ix/lL7eFQijfuK77a++Z7L/6NfIjlqzU9ZqVEVJg81 bfQGhnjRSDk3683SNpaI5u1nryo09E7uPI78XAUMuz4OeHMeoqikoSjlkmbkoVJyo1Rj nUjyY6WpnRe/c/kb4o7KR2GWhJ0j3CCyrDltoNf1+3wMBQLF/QZcpG+YehY2L0DgsuVX IxVQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQ0KAghJ8FGeYFnYBNkuRWnsAajvSjlxzxBkAdBHa+Y2o/gpSp1yDsvKmHrbYGka2yTGLh3xb+LrLw85Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id b141mr34929340vka.82.1455199431865; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:03:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:03:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:03:51 -0800
Message-ID: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
To: Mark Andrews <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143f84636b958052b7f05d3
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Roy A. Gilmore" <>, "" <>
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 14:03:56 -0000

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Mark Andrews <>; wrote:

> The evidence actually showed the transition was on track.

After six years, it didn't appear to the working group that a transition of
any kind was actually happening.

> Nameservers support SPF were deployed.

I thought it was pretty clear that this wasn't the problem.  The major
obstacles were poor provisioning systems and faulty firewalls (as you
pointed out, and as the experiments we did suggested).  The problem is that
they are widespread, and that's unlikely to change.

Libraries supporting SPF as well as TXT were being deployed.

We specifically looked for this (especially the "being deployed" part) when
preparing RFC6686, and found no evidence of it.  Exactly one source of type
99 queries was identified.  So, although there existed software support,
nobody was using it.  We asked around, and nobody was planning to use it,
either; many operators didn't even know what we were talking about.

> None of this is captured in RFC6686.

Because it wasn't supported by evidence.  If we had seen data to the
contrary, we'd have written a different report.