[81027] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: soBGP deployment
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon May 23 16:08:24 2005
To: Daniel Golding <dgolding@burtongroup.com>
Cc: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>,
bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 23 May 2005 15:24:20 EDT."
<BEB7A624.BD65%dgolding@burtongroup.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 16:07:41 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1116878861_3973P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, 23 May 2005 15:24:20 EDT, Daniel Golding said:
> A bizarre assertion was made that only a "few" are implementing SPF, which
> is demonstrably untrue. Its getting implemented because its easy, not
"It's easy to deploy an incomplete solution". Why does my Spidey-sense scream
that this is a train wreck about to happen? ;)
> because its complete. This obsession with perfection will (as usual) result
> in exactly no progress. Folks need to be willing to get 70% of the benefit
> for 10% of the effort.
There's probably a *large* difference between:
a) The number of sites that deployed an SPF DNS entry
b) The number of sites that bit the bullet and *didnt* put "~all" at the end.
c) The number of sites checking other site's SPF records
d) The number of sites rejecting mail due to (possibly in part) bad/missing SPF.
The number of sites doing (a) is likely high. How many are doing b-d?
In addition, I suspect a large percentage of sites who deployed SPF to any
extent are thinking it solves 70% of *one* problem, when it's actually a 70%
solution for something else....
--==_Exmh_1116878861_3973P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFCkjgNcC3lWbTT17ARAjlyAKDw/AUYcy8j9l1kJUziEFC4Z+7ZbwCfaeYo
67YEPiuT9EI1QeonjzvXQsM=
=qlmR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1116878861_3973P--
