Begin forwarded message:
> Resent-From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com > From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com > Subject: Re: [dnsext] SPF isn't going to change, was Deprecating SPF > Date: August 23, 2013 10:03:26 PDT > Resent-To: bmann...@isi.edu > To: John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> > Cc: dns...@ietf.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 >> dns...@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext > _______________________________________________ > dnsext mailing list > dns...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
