spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: For SPF Council review - FAIL PermError vs. NONE NXDOMAIN

2005-06-01 06:37:34
In <429D110D(_dot_)375A(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann 
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:

wayne wrote:

1 - PermError is only used to indicate errors in SPF policies,
    this includes cases like redirect=any.invalid or the known
    include:any.invalid NONE => PermError

:: 2 - other cases of NXDOMAIN or domain literals result in NONE

3 - Receivers may treat PermError like FAIL, and TempError
    like SOFTFAIL, SMTP offers error codes 5xx and 4xx resp.
 
I admit that I'm confused about what you are asking for here.
This appears to me to be mostly a rehash of issues that have
already been decided.

It's ten days old.  Julian dropped his proposal to add NXDOMAIN
to PermError, but you didn't decide it.  Roughly my point 2.

Julian's proposal was voted on, and since it ended in a tie, the
motion was defeated.  I really don't like the idea of re-opening
issues, that kind of defeats the point of having a vote.


-02pre1 does not yet have redirect=invalid as a PermError like
an include:invalid, roughly the rest of my point 1.

This is already on the list of issues that need to be decided.


Mark said that a PermError shouldn't be handled like a SOFTFAIL
(4xx), but like either NONE or FAIL.  I want "like FAIL (5xx)",
not like NONE.  As polite and in "sender-policy"-style as you
wish, but still clear enough for any reader.  

Again, this has been ruled on.


SPF deals with sender policies, good, bad, or ugly.
[...]

Is this also something you want the SPF council to review?

It wasn't, but now that you ask, why not, it's the "philosopy"
behind these points, as invented by you here some months ago.

This philosophy has been discussed a lot, but I think it is way too
vague to rule on for the I-D.


-wayne