-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
Wayne Schlitt wrote:
I can completely understand a Receiver Policy that rejects email when
the MAIL FROM is NXDOMAIN. Rejecting email on the HELO domain being
invalid doesn't seem as wise to me.
Both are outside the SPF scope.
Exactly, IMO.
However, it looks like what people are trying to do is have NXDOMAIN
be a PermError and PermError causing the rejection. This is really
bad since it makes a Receiver Policy into a claimed Sender Policy.
I didn't get that feeling; maybe I missed a post.
No, you're right, no one proposed that.
I think that treating NXDOMAIN as None is the most logical thing. If
i-hate-spf.com doesn't want anything to do with SPF, then an SPF check
against nxdomain.i-hate-spf.com should return None, not PermError.
True. Except when i-hate-spf.com does publish something like
"v=spf1 include nxdomain.i-hate-spf.com -all"
This is what the discussion, IMHO, is about.
Not really, here you're missing the point.
The "should include:non-existent-domain result in PermError?" issue is
somewhat separate.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCkFgVwL7PKlBZWjsRAgpSAKD0vlkrBmBgDNdQn4yccQr2K8scHwCg+0q3
XMVV2itHgSy+0aF/dA2aeMk=
=0QiQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----