Re: SPF isn't going to change, was Deprecating SPF
David Conrad <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.dnsext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Andrew, On Aug 23, 2013, at 5:57 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > I would certainly be > delighted if we had people or (more likely) money to conduct a really > rigourous study, but that seems to me like wishful thinking. What would a more rigorous study show? As far as I can tell, the issue isn't whether the SPF RR is being used (it appears to be, albeit at a tiny percentage relative to TXT currently), rather it's whether or not a handful of major mail service providers will use SPF RRs in the future if the IETF were to document a fix to the broken transition strategy in 4408. The SPFBIS WG appears to be asserting that despite no one thinking using TXT is a good idea, most DNS servers supporting SPF (Microsoft being the notable exception), DNS hosting and UI vendors saying they're waiting on the IETF to make up their mind about the SPF RR, existing DNS editors supporting the SPF RR, etc., no transition away from TXT is possible. I'm unclear what a rigorous study of existing data could possibly demonstrate that would convince anyone who holds this view otherwise. Regards, -drc _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 495 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSGA71AAoJEIzZ2DQOJFbKuw4H/i0/0Y8776sfiqoDUl0KdpEg mYSjIeoPfU/Xr8YGXB6iWKsef+Xn7FnRbuPJBwUpY7bIVWE+vp2E1q80JxS+Xpmq pb3RZXXm5Hyo/OrcBc6xrnsCCkfT+PzBzuEmlK+KYZAREcwv0Xobe9++J5aqyfJl xWEzmY9LudXX3rYSGtZcru3WNWCo9At/bCZnl29cQamhcj/mwKB9czUnIgsno08I 7Y41RcElAc1vbvQpiQry4E65adzPL8rIeJ+duvF5aO0ZdrHswPvCNvHr4W6KTsgG WDOvcxypItfY+3xGlTDqBuuGvOZbiYsG/+8xWtohyUX9pLPSQOFYYNfcdbxo054= =57zW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----