On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 05:44:15PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
There are two ways to report this information back to domain
owners: they can use an "exists" for logging, or they can
help develop a reporting syntax, eg. v=spf1 -all
report=postmaster+spf(_at_)%{d}
I have used +exists: to great effect in the past. I think the old SPF
record for altavista.com is still up there, though I doubt anyone is
logging anymore or even paying attention over there. It's a great tool for
catching failures, especially when placed right before -all.
--Alex van den Bogaerdt <alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net> wrote:
I seem to recall "report" has been discussed in the past. If memory
serves me well, the plan was to send a periodic report.
Perhaps this is something to think about as well, i.e.:
-1- define _if_ a report should be sent (can be combined with -2-)
-2- define _when_ to send (per ## queries, per week, per day, never)
-3- define _what_ report should be sent (detailed, normal, summary)
This is a good idea also. Especially good if the domain is not already
being abused by spammers and viruses. It might actually give soft fail a
reason for existing.
I think we would want it to be an "optional" report as well, as in it's
good practice to send but the receiver can ignore the requirement if they
don't want the overhead of sending warnings.
I think it should be assumed that if anyone *sends* such reports, they
should send them from a domain that has its *own* SPF info.
gregc
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>