wayne wrote:
Yes, and I think people who reject email on PermErrors
are making a mistake
Those who don't should be shot for excessive technical
incompetence, same idea as bogusmx.rfc-ignorant.org
Strange discussion.
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| A recursive check_host() result | Causes the "include" mechanism |
| of: | to: |
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Pass | match |
| Fail | not match |
| SoftFail | not match |
| Neutral | not match |
| TempError | throw TempError |
| PermError | throw PermError |
=> | None | throw PermError |
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Just add the one and only complete specification of PermError
as found in the now expired draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00
A PermError result means that the domain's published records couldn't
be correctly interpreted. Checking software SHOULD reject the
message. If rejecting during SMTP transaction time, it SHOULD use an
SMTP reply code of 550 and, if supported, the 5.5.2 DSN code.
WTF is so difficult about this, the whole system doesn't work
if receivers ignore PermErrors silently, that's "engineeering"
for kids.
Bye, Frank