-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of
Julian Mehnle
Sent: vrijdag 25 februari 2005 2:52
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Handling of -all
The alternative you suggested -- as far as I think I
understood it -- is to simply write in the specification:
"Rejecting messages as a reaction to a FAIL result is
currently not recommended". And _that_ is simply
_not_ a viable option.
I can understand the position of pointing out -- like the people of SA do
for their product, for instance -- that SPF itself does not block anything
(which is true); and, taken to its extreme, perhaps even that SPF does not
recommend action. However, since we live in a real world, the implicit
recommendation on FAIL, if SPF is to have any meaning at all, must always
be that a REJECT is warranted. In the same vein that the information in
any DNS record always carries the implicit recommendation of being used
accordingly; anything else is silliness.
A recommendation, explicit or implicit, is no obligation, though. Your
MTA, your rules. But the intent, and so the implicit recommendation, of
FAIL can really only ever mean one thing: REJECT.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx