spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Minimal SPF implementation for mail receivers.

2004-04-02 19:05:26
Stuart D. Gathman (stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com) wrote:

Level 0:

Check a subset of mechanisms: A, PTR, MX, ALL.  Be sure that "unknown"
results from an unrecognized mechanism.  Do not support macros.  
Don't bother with Received-SPF.

If you don't include an Received-SPF header, then what would you do
with an "unknown" (or "neutral" or even "pass") result?

Level 1:

Check recursive mechanisms and macros: INCLUDE, EXISTS.  Add Received-SPF
headers, for inspection by downstream software (e.g. bayesian filters will
learn to use SPF results other than 'fail', including 'neutral' and
'softfail', in recognizing spam).  Reject mail giving a 'fail' result with 
code
551 and the recipient (allows the mail sender to bypass a non-SRS forwarder).

I'd say that this is where the natural split occurs: whether simply
to mark the messages with Received-SPF headers, or to reject messages
outright at the SMTP layer.  I'm doing the former right now.

-- 
Greg Wooledge                  |   "Truth belongs to everybody."
greg(_at_)wooledge(_dot_)org              |    - The Red Hot Chili Peppers
http://wooledge.org/~greg/     |


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>