Florian Weimer wrote:
[Wayne wrote:]
I don't recommend rejecting email on PermError. The old SPF
specs (mengwong-spf-0[01]) said that PermError (then known
as Unknown) MUST be treated as if there were no SPF records
published. The best I could do with the current spec is
not say anything in the spec about what to do with
PermError. (I lost the vote.)
This is very unfortunate. *sigh*
IBTD, it's not unfortuate, it's more like wrong. Actually he
_invented_ the concept of a "validating implementation", all
syntax errors detected and reported. If you see what crappy
policies Craig finds, or how long stupid errors used to get
away last year (sometimes for months) that was A Good Thing.
Later Wayne wanted to undo parts of this concept, but he had
"us" (TINU, at leaat minus Scott) brainwashed at this time, so
"we" (TINW) didn't let him undo his own PermError concept.
BTW, he didn't lose the vote, he twisted it in a 3:0 resolution
- one of the three was of course Wayne - allowing him to remove
the recommended SMTP error codes for a PermError. Stupid, but
everybody knows what it was before: His original idea in 2004,
the "validating implementation", was and is fine. Bye, Frank