No hat On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:26:51PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: > However, in this case, it is not in dispute that queries are happening. Actually, that _was_ in question. Remember, part of the justification for ditching TYPE99 is not only that publishers don't use it, but also that if they did there'd be no benefit. The evidence the WG produced was that there were hardly any validators querying for SPF. The WG originally had somewhat stronger claims in the draft, and I objected because I felt our sample wasn't good enough. The data that Patrik and David have presented suggest that there might indeed be more to the story, but again there are some issues with the samples. There are two additional things that would help make sense of these numbers. First, the raw number of queries isn't very interesting, if mail transactions all turn out to be with the same parties. We can't count the same party asking for TYPE99 twice as two validators. Second, how many of these TYPE99 queries arrive within the same time frame (yes, I'm waving my hands)? If the TYPE99 queries are being issued at the same time as the TXT record, that's an indication that the query source actually has no preference, and just wants the answer that comes fastest. The evidence that the WG looked at suggested that really only Yahoo preferred TYPE99, and that they stopped preferring it. There was one large mail system (I can't recall who) that sent TYPE99 queries, but actually sent both SPF and TXT at the same time in an effort to get the quickest response possible. As Scott has noted elsewhere in this thread, the SPF processing is often a blocking operation for mail systems, so latency added by two lookups in that processing is a big deal (particularly for very large systems). > * To what extent has that happened? I'm not the shepherd, but it is undeniable that most current-era shipping DNS servers support RRTYPE 99. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx