On Thu, 4 May 2006, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 05:25:02PM -0400, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
I can see a LAX mode feature where in case of a PERMERROR, it might
try concatenating substrings *with* a space as one of the heuristics
to guess what was meant (after sending a DSN with the diagnostic, of
By allowing these kind of errors to exist in stead of being repaired,
I'm affraid eventually we end up in a situation where this relaxed
mode is no longer a workaround but rather a defacto standard.
I must concur. Remember what happened to HTML during the browser wars.
Being lax now will almost certainly haunt us later.
The "lax" mode annoys the sender with a DSN containing the permerror diagnostic
(and rejects the message if the DSN is not accepted) before applying a
successful heuristic. The Received-SPF header still says permerror.
In no way does "lax" mode transmute a permerror into a pass. The only
thing "lax" mode heuristics do is change the local policy as to
whether to accept a message with SPF permerror. I add my own
"X-Guessed-SPF" header to record the result of the heuristics.
Perhaps the DSN should annoy postmaster(_at_)sending(_dot_)domain also. In any
case, users don't like their mail getting rejected just because
the senders postmaster couldn't be bothered to test his SPF record
for basic syntax before deploying it.
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
please go to