soBGP deployment

Mon May 23 20:07:41 UTC 2005

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....

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20050523/07c9312e/attachment.sig>