In <20040205010957(_dot_)GO1323(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> Meng Weng
Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:
| But this SPF spec is misleading because most SPF clients will actually
| see this as: "v=spf1 mx ?all"
|
| If you use a modifier, things are clearer. If you say
| "v=spf1 mx -all smime=_smime.%{p}", then it is clear to everyone that
| the default will be -all if the special client doesn't recognize the
| smime extention. Of, if you really want to return unknown in such
| case, you would specify "?all" instead of "-all".
If the client doesn't recognize smime, do you really want it to fail?
If the client does recognize smime, and the message is a forgery, do you
really want it to return neutral?
With unknown mechanisms, domain owners don't have a choice, with unknown
modifiers, domain owners do have a choice. The answers to those two
questions should be left up to the domain owner.
(Note that the SPF results of neutral, unknown and none are supposed
to all do the same thing, so the difference between returning neutral
and unknown is really a non-issue.)
-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-02.9.5.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡