----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Kitterman" <spf2(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com>
Hector Santos wrote:
Then how are you expecting this to be read?
NEUTRAL --> default neutral, no match, continue
NEUTRAL --> default neutral, no match, continue
FAIL --> FAIL? Or use previous default?
The above doesn't match sense. No?
No, I expect it to match the Neutral mechanism and
return a Neutral result.
I was not referring to your record, but now in general.
For logic like above, if it does not match, it will fail.
Is that the policy?
I guess, I would like to understand the reasoning behind returning what seems
to be a "hard neutral."
You are basically declaring:
"I am sending mail from a machine that you
you probably shouldn't trust!"
Whats the point then?
I guess I'm having a hard time grasping this form of a "Administrative Policy"
- a policy saying you are who you are, you are sending mail from the machine
you expose to the world, but you say at the same time, "don't trust me. I might
be a liar." :-) It is like a cop pulling you over, coming to your car, and
he sees you looking at his badge and tells you, "Don't worry about it, this
badge is probably fake anyway."
My point is that SPF wins when people send from machines that RECEIVERS can
trust. I see no point sending from a machine where the policy is to declare it
is not "trustworthy." If that is the case, then don't send from it. Send it
from a machine where there is trust.
Anyway, thanks.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com