-----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 Alex
van den Bogaerdt
Sent: donderdag 24 februari 2005 22:01
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Handling of -all
Now:
We are testing. Tests go wrong. Do not reject. Flag only and
inform the sender when appropriate. Rejection is strongly
discouraged.
There I was, thinking we had "softfail" for that. ;)
Seriously, though, I think we should be careful not to let the meaning of
"fail" slide towards "softfail". If a publisher is still really that
unsure about his setup, let him publish "~all" instead. That is the
freedom of choice the SPF protocol allows. But the admin who wants to
appear tough, and boldly publishes "-all", should not then, however
kindly, ask of others to take his bravery with a grain of salt, and really
treat is as "~all".
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx