IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 08 May 2013 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 1677221F8F25 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 13:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -111.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 6Vyd4VtJuztw for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 13:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E5B21F8EBF for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2013 13:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 12261 invoked from network); 8 May 2013 20:42:36 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 8 May 2013 20:42:36 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=518ab8bb.xn--btvx9d.k1305; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=XVN9owVEqoUocI0ccnwGNl5gFMb4bchC97uk6w5lB3s=; b=Nw1Ds80EM/fNC/GX98uW3gC5PkYEtcDAacoOdGaRlT9Pdw3Sr+uVqdBbR4nWGQwO4thWlPn9afjpD9kv1uGSYFT7QUxIu6y+Xsz9kUEGMHrBcj4vyakGne29SwMAoOAWeXPE6GgXjI/VIpKGeI8eMjh4yvcu/I7yJWR7PnECGOU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=518ab8bb.xn--btvx9d.k1305; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=XVN9owVEqoUocI0ccnwGNl5gFMb4bchC97uk6w5lB3s=; b=HeOd8xCSA3cMrwZpj2r2DYLsdKodEEiRBIPO6LoJhlYzFstbZWiKc2pCPJMOEoojOB387zhzQ/wo1vf3QAczn/Z81bZYquU50PG5fjcRyhHxn/tXFDQyEr68mngivIu6IhhvpAZPkkpuWXecrj0XUSKKrhFrp/cjA0pJIFosddU=
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 20:42:13 -0000
Message-ID: <20130508204213.31359.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <518AA161.4060600@dcrocker.net>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14
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: Wed, 08 May 2013 20:42:43 -0000

>Yeah, that's probably right.  My own view is that a recursion limit of 
>10 is phenomenally expensive (impractical) and a much smaller number 
>would be much better; but I assume that discussion isn't in scope...

I think you'll find that the libraries have all had a limit of 10 for
quite a while, and nothing bad has happened.

Also, there are definitely real SPF records with 9 or 10 indirections,
typically companies that include an ESP's record that has ranges all
over the place.  Were we to drop the limit below 10, there would be
interop problems.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email