IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] Proof of non-deployment [root@primary.se: Cron <root@primary> /usr/local/libexec/spf-txt.sh]

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 07 October 2014 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 5C1621A6FC0 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 09:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KcI1BR78y81j for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 09:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22f.google.com (mail-wg0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1DBE1A0299 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 09:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id x13so9669075wgg.18 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:15:49 -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; bh=44hbQwxJHz/EVLWhLVYIqd17jjKcc/eyNFTNVbv3eqM=; b=ksBRATQWrrr/AjqIAbORVJE2Yi01B74Rl2L6sboealp76wB7/rz+86cbabS7PkVTye NQqCsXZCWeSS9d8u5kW6SuW5yocUOaWxs9YnMJVTaDJ2zU8R3CI+HhGFEET5/N/cRzz2 N6Apu7iGvhQv4EO7s5G3pJNZvkpY+iBZCeDiIlqCvxNUMKkIZOPLhwrXge7kTuaD/WU2 Itm6v6JwAs+hhoBWcpZSKsS6U58J0q7TSGkT4SEqiobgrCaAqy8UXTrt2obUE4CaDEdf 0PZQIrmPfbX9NjjdCzvc45nvRBctkSCXJqEWPhlpd9IaMFqLUVXHwhb/iN0gluoEtCiW TiKw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.219.193 with SMTP id pq1mr6113566wjc.5.1412698549109; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.27.76.134 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 09:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D6213AB4-ABB2-45C5-AA52-59369B03B88F@anvilwalrusden.com>
References: <20141007063737.GA28581@besserwisser.org> <D6213AB4-ABB2-45C5-AA52-59369B03B88F@anvilwalrusden.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:15:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYpA_snEkjnCeXFcxf6kzt-8rF1+Uovypn1yNe+5VVB+w@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2862031cc280504d783ef"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/zIiMxZrhStDHXBvcqCB8QUzTrGY
Cc: "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Proof of non-deployment [root@primary.se: Cron <root@primary> /usr/local/libexec/spf-txt.sh]
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: <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: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:15:52 -0000

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:

> It's always fun to be sarcastic, but you seem to be missing a point.
>
> The WG did not decide to deprecate the type for fun.  The problem was that
> there was a bug in the original RFC: the way the TXT and TYPE99 RRtype use
> was specified, it was possible for two implementations to be fully
> conforming without being able to interoperate. So we had to make an
> incompatible change of some kind, and given the empirical evidence we had
> the WG decided that picking only one was safest.  TXT remains the
> overwhelming leader, so it won.
>

Given the survey work recorded in RFC6686, I would be curious to hear
people's theories explaining the substantial uptick of TYPE99 queries in
the last two years while the industry has actually gone in the opposite
direction.  Of course, that presumes there's ample breadth and no bias in
the traffic seen by this one resolver.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email