On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 01:19:25PM -0400, Pobox Customer Support wrote:
| Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:55:56 -0700
| To: pobox(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com
| From: Ben Jackson <ben(_at_)ben(_dot_)com>
| Subject: you use both "fail" and "deny" in SPF [PTN.20031005.0080B]
| X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=8.0
| tests=RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM,USER_AGENT_MUTT
| version=2.55
| X-Spam-Level:
|
| Your SPF pages refer to "fail" and "softfail" several times but I
| think you mean "deny" and "softdeny". You should get it straight
| before both are widespread and implementors have to support both
| possibilities.
|
is it too much to have "deny" and "softdeny" be in the SPF response
type, while "fail" and "softfail" appear in the Received-SPF header?
i think of allow/softdeny/deny as the opinion returned by SPF, and
pass/fail as the interpretation by the MTA policy engine.
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡