spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

op=dk (was: iESG and the Sender's Identity)

2005-04-13 19:59:12
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:

I liked the proposals to advertise other authentications in
the SPF record via modifiers.  E.g. dk=... ses=...

I've thought about op=dk "I use DK".  But what's it supposed
to mean ?  Some possibilities:

- If SPF says FAIL but DK says "GOOD" ignore the FAIL, it's
  only a minor case of 1023/2821-alias forwarding confusion.

- If SPF says NEUTRAL but DK says "BAD" or "GOOD" ignore SPF.

- If SPF says PASS but DK says "BAD" - what happened ?

And what's going on if my sender policy covers all my mail
providers, but only some of them support DK ?  (Hint, I know
shit about DK, if that's impossible please tell me).

Even if the maintainers of the other protocols don't like it,
it doesn't hurt to put them in the SPF record.

Sender policies shouldn't advertize arbitrary garbage, it should
be _very_ useful for the MX of the receiver.

For those recipients that check SPF first, you have a nice one
stop list (when provided by the sender).

Okay, op=csv is out, it would be stupid to check SPF before CSV.
But what's the precise meaning of op=dk ?  Op=ses is out, there
was never a published I-D for SES, op=rumpelstiltskin is useless.

putting the pointers to 2822 checks in SPF makes sense.

Meng or Jim didn't want op=pra, they are happy with spf2.0/pra.
You get it anyway with an nslookup q=spf or q=txt.  Bye, Frank



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>