On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 12:47:56AM +0000, Dan Boresjo wrote:
| On Tuesday 27 January 2004 11:07 pm, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
| > I'm going to bring back "softfail" so people don't have to choose
| > between "?" and "-" --- "~" will be a happy medium.
|
| As the spec is supposed to be frozen, I hope you are referring to SPF2?
No, I'm afraid this is a change for spfv1. It's a very minor change
though with very big results. I want to put SOFTFAIL back in for the
following reasons:
1) I took it out too hastily when Eric Allman questioned its value.
2) If we put it back in, people won't have to choose between "unknown"
and "fail".
3) AOL will be able to change their record to ~all.
4) We'll then be able to gather much better statistics on expected false
positives and so on.
5) It lets domains smoothly switch from ? to - by stopping at ~ along
the way.
6) Wayne talked me into it.
SOFTFAIL means a receiver MTA should still accept the message, but apply
a higher level of skepticism or a higher transaction cost: it should
content-filter it more strongly or (in a universe where hashcash is
available) the receiver MTA could ask the sender to compute some sort of
hashcash.
This change will be backward compatible to all existing published domains.
-------
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
Wiki:
http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/HomePage
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡