-----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: zaterdag 21 mei 2005 6:27
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] PermError in spf-01
wayne wrote:
BTW, I don't think anyone is rejecting on PermError now.
Mark said it several times in the IRC log. Apparently
Sendmail Inc. does it for an invalid include, see spf-help:
<http://mid.gmane.org/42782562(_dot_)5596(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
<http://mid.gmane.org/42783CF1(_dot_)70AD(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
<http://mid.gmane.org/20050504123122(_dot_)F1B4(_dot_)STEVE(_at_)teamITS(_dot_)com>
It's also documented in draft-newton-maawg-sp-cosiderations-00:
| Under SPF Classic (Section 2.1.2), if an "include" mechansim
| references a non-existent SPF record, SPF processing against
| all email for the domain making the reference would result in
| a PermError state and consequent permanent SMTP rejection of
| the email.
I've yet to see a reject because of this
See above.
The "SHOULD reject on PermError" is a creation from the MARID
process.
Of course. 4xx would only delay the error handling.
It would also be sending the wrong message: "Do not worry or bother to fix
anything; yours is just a transient error."
Given that all specs say PermError MUST be treated as None
That's not the case, the last SPF spec. published today says
(incorrectly) "like SOFTFAIL" = 4xx, and the previous spec.s
back to schlitt-00 / lentczner-00 had a "SHOULD reject" (5xx).
I cannot reconcile with "PermError = 'softfail' = 4.x.x". I prefer "SHOULD
reject" (as I want folks to clean up their published act, instead of
having receivers draw a veil over their misconfiguration). I could live
with "PermError MUST be treated as None", though. As is often the case,
cogent cases can be made for both positions. The middle stance, however
(treat it like 'softfail' = 4.x.x), is not something I can defend -- not
with a straight face, at least. :)
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx