spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: BTFOOM

2005-05-22 01:49:42
Julian Mehnle wrote:

As I see it, "PermError" doesn't just mean "the used SPF
record is broken"

That was the meaning back to the dark ages of "UNKNOWN".  It
used to be handled like NONE, then Wayne brainwashed us all
to the better "validating implementation" concept.  Because
it's much easier to change the spec. than say the POBOX site.

Or the POBOX sender policy (a clear PermError for each per-
user policy with a single counted mechanism, how long now ?)

I'd like the spec to explicitly advise receivers to perform
a sanity check on the sender domain before applying SPF

"Dear receiver, as an MTA admin, would you please be so kind
 to read and understand RfC 2821 before trying more dangerous
 stuff like SPF ?"  

That's hopeless.  Helping to educate the SPF publishers (like
POBOX) is more important.  I've now formally filed this issue
as a [Discuss] aka "For SPF Council review" in this thread, see
<http://mid.gmane.org/42904317(_dot_)1574(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>

                            Bye, Frank