On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 05:10:37PM +0100, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
And while I might not have much say in here or in other standardization
bodies, I still agree with Paul Graham: false negatives are an
opimtization criterion; false positives are a bug.
Either the MTA is not authorized to send a message, or it is.
If a message is rejected due to "-all" or alike, this will never
be a false positive. It is a configuration error or it is fraud.
If a message is rejected for other reasons, such as "?all", "~all"
or alike, it also is a configuration error and thus not a false
positive. In this case, the config error is on the receiver's end
or on an intermediate MTA.
I get the feeling you think false positives are possible with SPF.
Please discuss.
cheers,
Alex
--
I ask you to respect any "Reply-To" and "Mail-Follow-Up" headers. If
you reply to me off-list, you'd better tell me you're doing so. If
you don't, and if I reply to the list, that's your problem, not mine.