--Meng Weng Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:16:24PM -0600, wayne wrote:
|
| > I suspect that this logic probably
| > should not be present for the HELO fallback case -- maybe it should
| > return SOFTFAIL instead.
|
| I think this logic probably should not be present period.
|
OK, I will take it out of 1.997.
Do you guys want "unknown" or "none" to occur for NXDOMAIN?
I would suggest "none" as this is the same as what happens when the name is
there but the SPF record doesn't exist.
Now that I think about it, I think sendmail and other MTA's will catch the
MAIL FROM: <user(_at_)nonexistent(_dot_)domain> on their own, but I don't know if they
would catch MAIL FROM: <> and HELO nonexistent.domain. I still agree with
most folks who posted here, that it's not SPF's role to deal with any mail
from (or helo) with nonexistent names. Perhaps it's worth a sideways
mention that "Most MTA's already check for mail from nonexistent names -
you may want to verify if this is on with your MTA". Since I don't know
really any MTA's that check for MAIL FROM: <> and HELO nonexistent.domain I
don't know what we should be recommending to people for that case.
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>