Re: Sendmail white paper

On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 12:58 -0500, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
> Sadly, yes.  I am now forced to reject on softfail by default as a result.
>
> Who is publishing these whitepapers?  If you can't make your users
> authenticate, then publish ?all.  ~all is for testing.  Whoever
> is telling people to use ~all instead of ?all is shifting the meaning.
>
> However, the new meaning is not completely unreasonable.  The original
> spec said to treat neutral exactly the same as none.  But, I have
> always treated neutral differently because it indicates that the 
> domain owner at least has an SPF record.  For instance, I block neutral from
> some commonly forged domains like aol.com.  
>
> So, it seems that softfail is shifting from its original intent of
> testing an SPF deployment before publishing -all, to something like
> how I was treating neutral.
I would have to agree with you here, it certainly does seem to have a
new meaning (does the wizard still use the old definition? meaning ~all
= testing). And i would also tend to agree with the way you are treating
it, problem is, its getting harder and harder to tell who is "testing"
an implementation and who is just not willing to go to the -all for
other reasons.

I dunno...

Michael

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features 
SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part