Julian Mehnle wrote:
The entire issue of how to handle SPF(non-existent-domain)
is still not really resolved anyway.
As far as I'm concerned it is, and I'm strongly opposed to any
modification, unless it's about error results for HELO checks.
SPF is checkhost( in LHS, in RHS, in IP, out result ) and not
restricted to "valid RHS", BTW, how do you define "valid RHS" ?
No domain literal as RHS is clear, but you also have a concept
of "existig RHS", but what's an existing RHS ? Something with
an A, AAAA, MX, or alias probably, what else ? And why should
SPF be restricted to these cases, it's only interested in those
RHS with a SPF sender policy, anything else is NONE, ready.
Adding an artificial -q=any before SPF only to turn these NONEs
into PermErrors within SPF is a waste of time. It's also a bad
idea to reject domain literals with a PermError, - we dicussed
this already for a "FAIL malformed domain" in draft-lentczner,
and found that this is a receiver policy at best, but not SPF.
| Status: standard
ACK, not more "experimental".
| Related information: http://spf.mehnle.net/
I guess this registration template is still in its infant
stages, right?
No.
If not: what's the point of referring to
http://spf.mehnle.net here?
The SPF Council is responsible for SPF related issues, you've
just unilaterally and unanimously extended its term of office
until November. This is just the URL of the SPF Council, what
else should it be ? For spf2.0 I'd propose spf.pobox,com, but
maybe spf2.0 prefers draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-02.txt
(work in progress, kucherawy -02 was published this month)
Bye, Frank