In <x4wu35ml3v(_dot_)fsf(_at_)footbone(_dot_)midwestcs(_dot_)com> wayne
<wayne(_at_)midwestcs(_dot_)com> writes:
1289260 total domain names
33016 total TXT records found (some domains have more than one)
6320 have SPF records -> 19.1% of all domain level TXT records are
spf records
I ran some checks over these same 1.3 million domain names looking for
Caller-ID records, and here is what I found:
1289260 total domain names
82 have Caller-ID records
57 have both Caller-ID records and SPF records
45 have "testing=true" in the C-ID records.
25 have C-ID records only, of which three (10%) are microsoft.com,
exchange.microsoft.com and hotmail.com
So, there are hundreds of times as many people who have published SPF
records without publishing Caller-ID records as vice versa. Caller-ID
has had about the same number of published records 3 months after
being announced as SPF had 3 weeks after it was announced, despite
MicroSoft getting a much more press coverage about its announcement.
I'm not sure what to make of this. It could be the difference between
XML vs the "simple" SPF syntax. It could be the availability of SPF
wizards. It could be availability of working code.
Whatever the cause, it would be best for us to try and make sure the
MARID proposal follows the SPF trajectory.
-wayne