On Aug 20, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.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: 2011/07/30 08:07:51 spf: 2, txt: 1, 200.000000% 2011/08/10 21:28:41 spf: 4, txt: 121, 3.305785% 2011/08/14 21:30:11 spf: 1, txt: 45, 2.222222% 2011/08/16 17:20:40 spf: 0, txt: 5, 0.000000% 2011/08/17 00:53:42 spf: 1, txt: 1, 100.000000% 2011/08/19 01:10:53 spf: 0, txt: 6, 0.000000% 2011/08/21 03:09:09 spf: 27, txt: 45, 60.000000% 2011/09/13 04:25:21 spf: 30, txt: 113, 26.548673% 2011/09/15 16:19:41 spf: 3, txt: 16, 18.750000% 2011/09/15 17:16:35 spf: 0, txt: 3, 0.000000% 2011/09/22 18:35:07 spf: 6, txt: 22, 27.272727% 2011/09/26 19:08:48 spf: 0, txt: 7, 0.000000% 2011/09/30 01:02:42 spf: 1, txt: 7, 14.285714% 2011/10/10 03:53:19 spf: 42, txt: 157, 26.751592% 2011/10/20 00:39:06 spf: 2, txt: 14, 14.285714% 2011/10/31 19:08:55 spf: 5, txt: 141, 3.546099% 2011/11/02 20:37:05 spf: 0, txt: 16, 0.000000% 2011/11/15 17:15:38 spf: 8, txt: 196, 4.081633% 2011/11/30 19:04:48 spf: 47, txt: 335, 14.029851% 2011/12/12 22:18:55 spf: 1, txt: 294, 0.340136% 2011/12/25 16:04:50 spf: 16, txt: 611, 2.618658% 2011/12/29 17:58:19 spf: 1, txt: 2, 50.000000% 2012/01/12 01:15:17 spf: 2, txt: 52, 3.846154% 2012/01/18 22:24:14 spf: 0, txt: 60, 0.000000% 2012/01/30 00:45:27 spf: 2, txt: 121, 1.652893% 2012/02/02 17:18:54 spf: 54, txt: 288, 18.750000% 2012/02/10 23:59:02 spf: 0, txt: 102, 0.000000% 2012/02/23 00:52:47 spf: 20, txt: 201, 9.950249% 2012/03/19 03:17:46 spf: 118, txt: 580, 20.344828% 2012/03/24 18:33:15 spf: 2, txt: 46, 4.347826% 2012/04/13 16:41:10 spf: 121, txt: 1743, 6.942054% 2012/05/19 18:20:14 spf: 54, txt: 631, 8.557845% 2012/06/07 13:52:26 spf: 82, txt: 961, 8.532778% 2012/07/05 02:48:39 spf: 26, txt: 339, 7.669617% 2012/07/05 18:24:30 spf: 0, txt: 4, 0.000000% 2012/07/07 19:21:02 spf: 3, txt: 25, 12.000000% 2012/07/17 14:48:32 spf: 3, txt: 156, 1.923077% 2012/08/07 18:19:36 spf: 7, txt: 269, 2.602230% 2012/08/19 04:38:08 spf: 23, txt: 198, 11.616162% 2012/08/31 21:23:20 spf: 27, txt: 190, 14.210526% 2012/10/21 07:45:13 spf: 185, txt: 1285, 14.396887% 2012/12/07 21:59:04 spf: 74, txt: 704, 10.511364% 2012/12/11 18:28:28 spf: 0, txt: 24, 0.000000% 2012/12/31 07:51:05 spf: 52, txt: 436, 11.926606% 2013/01/08 00:30:31 spf: 10, txt: 119, 8.403361% 2013/02/02 01:30:47 spf: 22, txt: 341, 6.451613% 2013/02/16 06:44:53 spf: 20, txt: 143, 13.986014% 2013/02/28 01:58:33 spf: 11, txt: 153, 7.189542% 2013/03/05 02:38:51 spf: 5, txt: 75, 6.666667% 2013/03/08 23:47:17 spf: 0, txt: 99, 0.000000% 2013/03/09 02:21:46 spf: 1, txt: 1, 100.000000% 2013/03/20 01:29:03 spf: 46, txt: 1232, 3.733766% 2013/03/24 06:22:59 spf: 15, txt: 212, 7.075472% 2013/03/26 06:03:50 spf: 0, txt: 11, 0.000000% 2013/03/31 23:17:16 spf: 8, txt: 208, 3.846154% 2013/04/06 05:19:48 spf: 37, txt: 587, 6.303237% 2013/04/07 21:53:19 spf: 1, txt: 37, 2.702703% 2013/04/16 18:50:43 spf: 13, txt: 279, 4.659498% 2013/04/22 05:52:43 spf: 3, txt: 163, 1.840491% 2013/04/29 17:56:04 spf: 14, txt: 440, 3.181818% 2013/05/22 16:26:40 spf: 20, txt: 606, 3.300330% 2013/05/23 12:08:25 spf: 1, txt: 9, 11.111111% 2013/05/23 12:30:12 spf: 0, txt: 1, 0.000000% 2013/05/28 19:14:02 spf: 21, txt: 380, 5.526316% 2013/07/01 02:29:15 spf: 51, txt: 2246, 2.270703% 2013/07/01 15:02:05 spf: 2, txt: 16, 12.500000% 2013/07/07 04:50:19 spf: 0, txt: 109, 0.000000% 2013/07/24 01:09:39 spf: 36, txt: 1395, 2.580645% 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. Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
