spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean

2005-05-17 12:31:15
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


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