On 21 aug 2013, at 09:17, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: >> The WG had a hard time coming up with really good data about what validators >> look for, ... If someone else with some busy nameservers wants to provide >> different evidence now, it wouldn't hurt. > > Out of morbid curiosity, I just looked at the logs from my name server (which > has both TXT and SPF RRs but which is very, very far from being busy) with a > quick perl hack: : : : > totals: spf: 1389, txt: 19435, 7.146900% > > (the numbers are queries since the name server last restarted/dumped stats) > > Will look for better data than my measly little name server. I have been looking at the queries to one of the nameservers that Frobbit runs (which is authoritative for quite a number of zones, although not GoDaddy), and a tcpdump for a while today gives the following data: $ /usr/sbin/tcpdump -nr dns.pcap | grep 'SPF?' | wc -l reading from file dns.pcap, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet) tcpdump: pcap_loop: truncated dump file; tried to read 271 captured bytes, only got 95 1105 $ /usr/sbin/tcpdump -nr dns.pcap | grep 'TXT?' | wc -l reading from file dns.pcap, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet) tcpdump: pcap_loop: truncated dump file; tried to read 94 captured bytes, only got 18 2819 I.e. 2819 queries for TXT while there was 1105 for SPF resource record. Now, I have no idea whether all of those queries for TXT was only for the SPF usage of TXT of course, but this gives it was at least 28% of (TXT+SPF)-queries that was for SPF. Deprecating something that is in use that much just does not make any sense. Patrik
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
