Frank, Wayne:
I know the specs says. More the old, then the new since I haven't really gotten
the time to read it in its entirety.
The question was one of rhetorical nature.
If one claims to FAIL a IP, then why should one quality it
as a NEUTRAL? (lower the bar of the result).
According to the specs, we know what the RESULTS should be. But to me, it
doesn't make any sense. Of course, that isn't up to me to change
the meaning. We are talking about the "sensibility" of it.
Again, in my opinion (which is a strong, hard, not relaxed), it is already a
waste of time to tell a system something is "SOFT NEUTRAL" (rule processing
ends in ?ALL). It is even MORE of a waste of time to make it a "HARD NEUTRAL"
(a match qualifies as a NEUTRAL).
That's my point. Lets just leave it at because no one is going to convince me
that relaxed policies are not bedridden with overhead issues and all sort of
adversaries threats. I can understand why it exist, but that understanding is
scratched when a HARD NEUTRAL is used. I just don't get why someone is FOUND to
be "OK" tells me that is really can't be trusted. Maybe that is good and he
did me a favor by telling me:
"Look, I knocked on your door. You opened it it. Here is
my driver's license. You see, that's me! That's my
picture. It's really me. But you know what? Don't
trust me! I have a split personality and if you
let me in the door, I will might rape or even
kill you. So I don't know who I am. What say you?"
Don't you think someone is going to just be very skeptical of this
person?
Anyway, I'm ready to let this go if you are :-)
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
Newsgroups: spf.-.sender.policy.framework.discussion
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 11:43 PM
Subject: [spf-discuss] Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos
Hector Santos wrote:
What is the result for this HARD NEUTRAL?
The result is RTFM ;-) Wayne admitted that "include" is a
bad name. But "we" (IIRC Julian and Mark) managed to replace
"prefix" by "qualifier", + - ? ~ are now called qualifiers.
If an "include" internally results in PASS, it matches. The
final result is then the qualifier of the include. And yes,
-include:b.example can make sense for Greg's "include:not.me"
If the include internally results in (SOFT)FAIL or NEUTRAL
it doesn't match, then ignore it and continue left-to-right.
If the include throws an error (or is a dangling pointer to
a non-existing policy, internal NONE), the final result is
an error (TempError or PermError).
Again, please RTFM. Yes, it's long and all, but I think you
have good ideas how to twist the rules. For that you first
need to know them... ;-)
Bye, Frank
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com