-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
[...]
Wayne Schlitt wrote:
It is mentioned in the release notes.
| Removed e-mail receiver policy definition on how to handle HELO
| checking. It was copied incorrectly from draft-mengwong-spf-01,
| changing its meaning.
Yes, obviously I didn't get the meaning of this part by only reading the
diff.
It is Receiver Policy anyway, not Sender Policy.
Curious senders might wish to kow what the expected effect of a HELO FAIL
is. [...]
There is no expected effect. The meaning of a HELO "Fail" result is clear
from the specification, what else does a publisher (or a sender) need to
know?
Why do people keep thinking that not prescribing receiver reactions will
cause chaos to break out? Has that happened before under similar
circumstances?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFClkYCwL7PKlBZWjsRAp6+AJ9Ph7IZAh3E2BK0cPi+Sc9BLheemwCfVdry
P02Nyf8DhdmV4wdB9CtKEDA=
=5dyU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----