Re: [spfbis] Proposed spf TXT record change

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 10 February 2016 04:31 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 76F4B1B36C7 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:31:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 mLEpqwP5QVfB for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:31:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 979491B36C5 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:31:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.72.181.183] ([12.236.144.210]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u1A4VIqN000483 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:31:18 -0800
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, spfbis@ietf.org
References: <20160210022525.98482.qmail@ary.lan>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <56BABD0C.8070504@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:31:08 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160210022525.98482.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:31:19 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/x04fvzZPK6fFIynZFOxoWuT2aJQ>
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
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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 04:31:20 -0000


On 2/9/2016 6:25 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> I think the spf information should be placed in a TXT record
>> attached to a _spf selector (e.g. _spf.example.com).
>
> You're right, but you're also a decade too late.  Forget it.


+1

Yes, it should have been done that way.  No it does not seem possible to 
get the installed base to move to a different model.

d/