Begin forwarded message:
Resent-From: bmanning(_at_)vacation(_dot_)karoshi(_dot_)com
From: bmanning(_at_)vacation(_dot_)karoshi(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [dnsext] SPF isn't going to change, was Deprecating SPF
Date: August 23, 2013 10:03:26 PDT
Resent-To: bmanning(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu
To: John Levine <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com>
Cc: dnsext(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:14:38PM -0000, John Levine wrote:
I counted my queries from a few days ago and got 7086 TXT, 263 SPF, or 3.7%.
Nobody has argued that SPF usage is zero, and the reasons for
deprecating SPF have been described repeatedly here and on the ietf
list, so this exercise seems fairly pointless.
the reasons for not deprecating SPF have been described here
and on the ietf list repeatedly ... yet there has been little
concrete data regarding deployment uptake. These published
snapshots form a baseline - 201308, and it might be worthwhile
to look again in six months to see if the magnitude and ratio
have changed. The results of a second look should bring into
focus the prevaling trends and solidify the argument.
Surely there is no compelling urgency to conclude the current
LC - given the duration of this work a six month period to
gain emperical insight would not be a bad thing.
Would it?
/bill
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext