-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Scott Kitterman wrote:
I think that we are currently trying to fit three types of error into
two error descriptions. They are:
1. TempError - Something's wrong, but try again it could/should get
better.
2. MistakeError - Something's wrong, it won't get better, but there's
nothing particularly scary about it.
3. DangerError - Somethings wrong, it won't get better, and the error
has potential security implications.
Can a mail setup that employs SPF be significantly worse, security-wise,
than a mail setup that doesn't? What kinds of security implications do
you mean? Those that put the entire system (or significant parts thereof)
at risk, or those that just cancel or reduce the effectivity of SPF?
Besides, I'm not sure it is wise to introduce a _new_ result code into the
SPFv1 specification now. As for SPFv2/3, that's a different matter.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCgToWwL7PKlBZWjsRAmn/AJ9mhMJAUXEovb+tnRkDcvF9FWaY9ACdGmqN
6w9OVA/hD5RMj/y7uQ0zTLw=
=bVKW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----