-----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 Julian
Mehnle
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 7:22 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] For SPF Council review - FAIL PermError vs.
NONE NXDOMAIN
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Scott Kitterman wrote:
In this case, I advised that they go complain to godaddy.com to fix
their record, but in the meantime, should all domains that have
include:godaddy.com in their SPF record be rejected?
This is not for the spec to say. It's receiver policy.
The spec can't __SAY__, but the spec can and should give guidance.
If I thought people were rejecting on PermError/Unknown, then I'd have
had to advise him not to publish an SPF record until Godaddy gets
themselves fixed. That isn't going to help adoption.
It is practically impossible to predict how people are going to react to
PermError/Unknown. As for a practical solution to this user's problem, he
could manually include the semantics of the GoDaddy record in his own
record.
We you all will hopefully decide tonight, but if you don't know what the sender
policy is, I don't see how you do anything but admit that SPF gives you no
answer and move one.
Good point. I've suggested that to them.
Scott K