On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 12:39:30PM -0500, wayne wrote:
In <20050517164435(_dot_)GA18830(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com> Mark Shewmaker
<mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com> writes:
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 10:08:36AM -0400, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
SOFTFAIL is a relaxed result, and should be time limited. I handle
SOFTFAIL by sending a DSN to the purported sender. [...]
Should the spec explicitly bless this behavior in any way, perhaps by
obliquely mentioning that in publishing a softfail result, a domain
owner is effectively soliciting these sorts of helpful, well-behaved
DSNs?
There was once a report= draft floating around here that went into
this concept further. Caller-ID also had a thing that allowed domain
owners to request a report a certain percentage of the time on each
fail of each mechanism, but I think the XML for that was kind of
overkill.
I guess the kernel of my question is: Is there any simple thing that
can be done so that the sort of thing Stuart is doing (which I
personally think is just great, btw!) would not reasonably be
misunderstood to be abusive behavior, but would be understood to be
a thoughtful and polite thing for a reciever to do if done properly and
carefully.
(This doesn't have to be in the spec--it could be in faqs or
things of that sort. Just that if it should be in the spec..well, then
I had better get to suggesting wording. :-) )
--
Mark Shewmaker
mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com