Subject: [spfbis] SPF survey data

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 20:34:35 +0000

I have posted the mysqldump output of my SPF record survey at http://www.blackops.org/~msk/spf.mysql for anyone that wants to import the data and run your own analyses.  It's 42Mb in size.

Hoping to have a revision to the experiment document by the end of this week.  As nobody has put forth any suggested conclusions, I'll come up with some of my own and we can debate or agree on those.

-MSK

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 19:30:36 +0000

Revised URI:

http://www.blackops.org/~msk/spfbis

...now contains my survey's SQL dump (spf.mysql) as well as Philip's (spf.db.gz).

-MSK

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:35 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [spfbis] SPF survey data

-MSK

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:15:27 -0400

Hi Murray,

Please allow some time to analyze the collection.  Not sure if 1 week
is good, but isn't for me.  I will try to prioritize it.  I did have
some post IETF meeting comments, including input to the request made
at the meeting (i.e. pro/cons for received-spd/auth res), but didn't
have the time to complete the note.

However, I do think it will help to have some starter text to work with.

Thanks.

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spfbis mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis

-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:05:23 -0400

Hi,

I did a quick import of the spf.mysql.

Regarding type 99:

 From the simple SQL queries made,

-- count = 2,701
select count(*) from spf where (type=99 and data <> '') ;

it is my opinion it continues with the idea that there is significant 
deployment of type 99 usage to warrant client query and further, if 
SPFBIS does end up with recommending continuing supporting, I believe 
that will see the increase migration and publishing to type 99.  So to 
me, it can go either way.

The question for me has always been whether it benefits the DNS 
network to continue down this path.  I guess I am optimistic that one 
day we will have optimal DNS client/server query methods to address 
the dual record support needs.  I believe there are strong desirable 
interest in this area and there is evidence the "Microsoft Contingent 
Staff" (whatever that is) is looking into its current lack of support 
for unnamed types in its DNS servers.  See this thread in MSDN:

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/winserverNIS/thread/5841e884-db22-42a1-8530-615a375662cc#1431a54d-2735-4c5d-ad3b-6b8a7e0ba6d4

The fact this was not a resolved issue, MS DNS MVPs (if ACE is not 
aware of it, wow!) or there was no feed back with his Microsoft DNS 
MVP peers, does not give me confident the unnamed types issue is a big 
concern with Microsoft for its DNS servers.  On the other hand, it may 
depend on the IETF DNS doing a better job in technical sales and 
pushing the issue.

Overall, I have been a bit vex at seeing what appears to be lack of 
technical leadership on this matter. It seems that we just don't care 
anymore, DNS, Hardware, "Interpretative Script Languages" are fast 
today and that TXT is, well, "just good enough" and there will is no 
longer an expectation of see any brush back from the DNS people come 
LC and standardization of SPF.

So if TXT is the new "normal" for fast entry and declaring domain 
attribute or policy record information and its ok by the IETF/IESF/DNS 
community, then lets just look for the lesser overhead changes to 
SPFBIS in this regard - drop type 99.

Or do we still want to see what Microsoft has to say here? To me, this 
is very important as Microsoft DNS servers, *nix wienies like it or 
not, is a still big part of the network.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 04:15:00 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hector Santos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 2:15 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPF survey data
> 
> some post IETF meeting comments, including input to the request made at
> the meeting (i.e. pro/cons for received-spd/auth res), but didn't have
> the time to complete the note.

Whatever I post later this week, it's highly unlikely that it will be a final version.  You certainly have time to do your own evaluation.

-MSK