spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2005-05-18 05:46:49
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Frank 
Ellermann
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 3:34 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and
"Neutral" mean


Scott Kitterman wrote:

A "Pass" result means
[...]
It must mean was it always meant, you can't redefine it by a
decree.  Wayne's idea to stress the real meaning of "Neutral"
in -01pre was better.

Of course there is this old issue of a specific "Neutral" vs.
a dummy "Neutral" (as caused by the default ?all), but it's
far too late to modify the original results.  More than one
year too late,

The only way to introduce a HARDPASS (as proper subset of PASS)
or INTENTIONALNEUTRAL (as proper subset of NEUTRAL) today would
be a modifier,..

Scott K

...as in op=auth (formerly known as op=scott).  Rather useless
without a technical definition what receivers are expected to
do with it.  But your nightmare, a clueless reputation system,
is unlikely.  Such a system would have the time to distinguish
INTENTIONALNEUTRAL from dummy NEUTRAL by simply looking at the
policy.

And whatever happens with your INTENTIONALNEUTRAL, it's not the
same case as the ?all for say aol.com.

                         Bye, Frank

I agree that INTENTIONALNEUTRAL is not the same as falling off of the end of
the aol.com ?all record and it's to bad that no one bought off on SoftPass
last year (I know it's to late now).  If I'd thought it through enough to
argue the reputation system end of it, perhaps I'd have convinced people.
No point in worrying about it now.

The nightmare reputation system exists.

http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_0_x.html

These are the current SpamAssassin SPF tests

SPF: sender matches SPF record                          SPF_PASS
SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail)    SPF_FAIL
SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail)SPF_SOFTFAIL
SPF: HELO matches SPF record                            SPF_HELO_PASS
SPF: HELO does not match SPF record (fail)      SPF_HELO_FAIL
SPF: HELO does not match SPF record (softfail)  SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL

The patch to add NEUTRAL rules has already been accepted:

http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3616

No distinction between INTENTIONALNEUTRAL and FALLSOFFTHEENDNEUTRAL.  My
prediction is that once SA 3.1 is released, INTENTIONALNEUTRAL will be a
tough place to be.

Scott K


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