[spfbis] Fwd: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 30 April 2013 18:25 UTC

Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130430112315.0a7ee3e8@elandnews.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:24:00 -0700
To: spfbis@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [spfbis] Fwd: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14
Precedence: list

>Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:58:48 -0400
>From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
>To: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>,
>         draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis.all@tools.ietf.org,
>         "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
>Subject: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14
>
>
>I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
>ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
>IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
>security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
>these comments just like any other last call comments.
>
>
>The document is clear and describes the SPF mechanism effectively. 
>The only quibble that I could find is that repeated mentions are 
>made of limiting the number of 'DNS queries' without specifying 
>whether these are individual queries or recursive. The count will 
>come out rather differently if looking up 
>TXT/<http://x.example.com>x.example.com counts as one lookup or 
>three. I think it is reasonably clear that this is one but could not 
>find an explicit statement to that effect.
>
>On the security side, the document addresses all the mail issues 
>that I can remember at this point and rather more besides.
>
>I think we have reached the point of diminishing returns.
>
>The document provides a clear enough warning to people configuring 
>SPF records as to the consequences of getting it wrong which is the 
>main concern. The filtering services will know their business well 
>enough to minimize false positives.
>
>Hopefully the email infrastructure will evolve over time towards 
>concentrating on the more policy friendly approaches and it will be 
>possible to simplify the mechanism at a future date.
>
>
>--
>Website: <http://hallambaker.com/>http://hallambaker.com/

[spfbis] Fwd: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 S Moonesamy
Re: [spfbis] Fwd: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Scott Kitterman
Re: [spfbis] Fwd: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 (f… John R. Levine
Re: [spfbis] draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 S Moonesamy
Re: [spfbis] draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Douglas Otis
Re: [spfbis] draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 S Moonesamy
Re: [spfbis] draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Douglas Otis
Re: [spfbis] draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 S Moonesamy
Re: [spfbis] draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Phillip Hallam-Baker