regarding adoption… it would be interesting to take a second snapshot from
each of these servers in about six months
to see if the trend has changed (modulo PAFs observations that not all TXT ==
SPF). In the mean time, declare a suspension of
last call to gauge if the presumption of failure of the SPF RR merits this
drastic action.
/bill
On 21August2013Wednesday, at 3:26, Eliot Lear wrote:
Patrik,
First, I appreciate that you and Dave are bringing data to the table.
However, in this case, it is not in dispute that queries are happening. What
*is* in dispute is whether there are answers. I must admit I am having a
difficult time understanding the logic, even so. The *hard* part about this
was supposed to be implementation of the record in the application software.
Can the shepherd answer this question:
• To what extent has that happened?
The easy part was supposed to be people actually using the SPF record, once
it was out there. And so your data doesn't indicate what sort of answers
you're getting.
And another thing. Randy, is it your position that WGs shouldn't create new
TXT records due to transition issues?
Eliot
On 8/21/13 12:15 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 21 aug 2013, at 09:17, David Conrad <drc(_at_)virtualized(_dot_)org>
wrote:
On Aug 20, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Andrew Sullivan
<ajs(_at_)anvilwalrusden(_dot_)com>
wrote:
The WG had a hard time coming up with really good data about what
validators look for, ... If someone else with some busy nameservers wants
to provide different evidence now, it wouldn't hurt.
Out of morbid curiosity, I just looked at the logs from my name server
(which has both TXT and SPF RRs but which is very, very far from being
busy) with a quick perl hack:
:
:
:
totals: spf: 1389, txt: 19435, 7.146900%
(the numbers are queries since the name server last restarted/dumped stats)
Will look for better data than my measly little name server.
I have been looking at the queries to one of the nameservers that Frobbit
runs (which is authoritative for quite a number of zones, although not
GoDaddy), and a tcpdump for a while today gives the following data:
$ /usr/sbin/tcpdump -nr dns.pcap | grep 'SPF?' | wc -l
reading from file dns.pcap, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet)
tcpdump: pcap_loop: truncated dump file; tried to read 271 captured bytes,
only got 95
1105
$ /usr/sbin/tcpdump -nr dns.pcap | grep 'TXT?' | wc -l
reading from file dns.pcap, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet)
tcpdump: pcap_loop: truncated dump file; tried to read 94 captured bytes,
only got 18
2819
I.e. 2819 queries for TXT while there was 1105 for SPF resource record.
Now, I have no idea whether all of those queries for TXT was only for the
SPF usage of TXT of course, but this gives it was at least 28% of
(TXT+SPF)-queries that was for SPF.
Deprecating something that is in use that much just does not make any sense.
Patrik