[snip]
w> Softfail (~): the message does not meet a domain's strict
w> definition of legitimacy, but the domain cannot confidently state
w> that the message is a forgery. MTAs SHOULD accept the message
w> but MAY subject it to a higher transaction cost, deeper scrutiny,
w> or an unfavourable score.
Softfail causes false-positives (legitimate email getting erased
without warning to either the sender or recipient).
Erasing peoples email without warning is TOTALLY WRONG. Spammers made
email irritating, and us rabid anti-spammers who think it's OK to
trash a few real emails now and then have totally destroyed the entire
fabric of email itself. Nobody can rely upon it anymore because of
some idiot who thought that spam-scoring would be a good idea. It
isn't. Spammers deliberately avoid the rules, so the rules change, so
more and more hams get killed. THIS IS WRONG.
Meng: you need to tell people in your spec that "softfail" will cause
all baysian-equipped email clients (inc. all mozilla/thunderbird/etc
ones) to silently eradicate legitimate emails. In other words - state
in the strongest possible terms that softfail is a BAD IDEA, and that
the full "fail" is the only acceptable way for legitimate senders to
know that their email did not reach their recipient.
Maybe you don't, but some other people DO rely upon email in
life-and-death situations, and huge numbers rely upon it for important
financial reasons, so it is up to us to try and restore the concept of
email from it's new "uselessly unreliable" status before it's too
late. If the email can't go through, and it's important/legitimate,
the sender MUST know.
[snip]