(unknown)

23:35 <grumpy> all previous SPF specs say that you don't reject on
               PermError (aka unknown)
23:35 <grumpy> and Scott was very concerned about the new language
23:36  <MarkK> yes, ever since we switched from 'unknown' to PermError
23:36 <Julian> I agree that we shouldn't prescribe receiver policy, but I 
think most receivers will reject on "PermError". I don't think that Scott's 
opinion is very representative.
               (No offense, Scott.)

None taken.  Most people aren't responding to submissions to spf.pobox.com 
and on spf-help from people complaining about how come I rejected their 
e-mail.  This change is going to make it worse.

BTW, I don't think anyone is rejecting on PermError now.  I've yet to see a 
reject because of this and I've seen lots and lots of messed up records.

Bottom line: I don't think making a mistake with an SPF record should make 
mail less likely to be delivered than having no SPF record at all.  It's 
going to hurt adoption.

Scott K