In <4012A18B(_dot_)4070602(_at_)phase(_dot_)org> Wechsler
<wechsler(_at_)phase(_dot_)org> writes:
Meng Weng Wong wrote:
But if we bring back softfail (~all) we can add "none" as well with less
fear of the above!
I always did feel I was over hasty in taking out softfail.
As Meng well knows by my constant pestering of him, I strongly support
the resurection of softfail. It has a clear meaning: "The use of
other IP addresses is deprecated and discouraged, but valid email
still uses then. Warnings SHOULD be generated, but email SHOULD NOT
be rejected based only on softfail." This is very similar to how
language features evolve.
I do not support the introduction of "none". I think it must be made
very clear that "unknown" MUST be treated exactly the same as if no
SPF record exists. Otherwise, domain owners can not test the waters
by adding a logging SPF record such as:
example.com TXT "v=spf1 exists:CL.%{i}.FR.%{s}.HE.%{h}.spf-log.%{d} ?all"
I think that bringing back ~all will help keep people from assuming
that "unknown" means anything other than "unknown".
-wayne
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡