On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 11:54:41PM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
All of the errors really mean that check_host is unable
to determine the domain owner's policy.
No. The PERMERRORs as they were in the -00 draft really
mean "abuse = broken policies are bad, die spammer, die".
Let's not assume that _every_ error is on purpose, made by
spammers to frustrate the system, shall we?
Shit happens. White hats won't mind if their mail is being
rejected due to a fault on their end. I don't think we (the
white hats) would like to be called a spammer just because
some piece of technology happens to be broken, somehow.
It is net abuse to publish a broken sender policy. It wastes
resources on the side of the receiver. It should be rejected.
SPF is not for kids or idiots. SPF is a weapon.
Frank, if you never make (and made) a mistake, you're not human.
I do agree on returning 5xx on permerror. Just don't say
it is abuse by iditiots and/or spammers. Please.
Alex