----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Taylor" <dtaylor(_at_)vocalabs(_dot_)com>
Newsgroups: spf.-.sender.policy.framework.discussion
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Time to start rejecting on neutral?
Good point, you know this, I know it, I think the important thing is not
making the relaxed results have mandatory expirations, but making sure
that domain owners know why they don't want to use relaxed results
unless absolutely necessary.
I need to think through the implementation details. This should be
possible now.
Some time ago when this was last discussed (mostly by me I think <g>) I
provided an example paragraph outline of restrictions on Relaxed Provisions.
It basically covered two fundamental ideas:
1) Make sure to strongly indicate in the specifications that relaxed
provisions
are considered temporary policies and that compliant SPF servers *MAY*
enforce restriction on the prolonged usage of relaxed results.
2) SPF servers *MAY* implement time lime restrictions for relaxed policies
and
that such SPF systems *SHOULD* use a default of X Months starting
from the initial encounter of the SPF domain.
Now, this from a technical point of view. From an adminitrative point of
view, I leave it for the experts to fine tune this and decide what the
default X months should be and to provide other ideas like how should a SPF
server behave once an expiration is reached. Should it try sending a DSN?
etc.
I am just trying to close the holes. Thats all :-)
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com