Re: [spfbis] Proposed spf TXT record change

"Roy A. Gilmore" <> Wed, 10 February 2016 04:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D81C1B3696 for <>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:12:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yGs9OKq61nn8 for <>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:12:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA1E41B3691 for <>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:12:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u1A4CoV7014755 for <>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 23:12:50 -0500
Received: (qmail 16843 invoked by uid 0); 10 Feb 2016 04:12:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by 0 with ESMTPA; 10 Feb 2016 04:12:50 -0000
References: <20160210033104.98651.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "Roy A. Gilmore" <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Organization: RAGged Software
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:12:49 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160210033104.98651.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
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: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 04:12:53 -0000

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
simplify there code and make it more robust. This change could easily
rolled out as a bug fix. Bug fixes are released all the time, and SHOULD
be applied ASAP. If a server administrator is still using the same
version of his/her SMTP implementation next year that he/she is using
this year, he/she is not doing his/her job and should be fired.

On 02/09/2016 07:31 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <>; you write:
>> I hope I don't come across as argumentative, that is not my intention. I
>> don't have any idea how these workgroups work. I'm curious about a
>> behavior that I THINK (I could be wrong) is incorrect with spf, and
>> trying to learn, so I'm asking what I think are good questions.
> Old joke:
> Q. How could God create the world in six days?
> A. He didn't have an installed base.
> SPF works well enough that there is no incentive for anyone to change
> the existing running code that is in tens of thousands of mail systems
> all over the world.  If we were doing SPF from scratch, there's all
> sorts of stuff we'd do differently, but like I said, it's a decade too
> late.
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> spfbis mailing list