On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 08:04:38 +0200 Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
an option in an SPF record that promised a DKIM signature
for valid messages might be a good enough reason to go to
DATA on an SPF fail.
Wait a moment, you can't weaken PASS or FAIL with a modifier.
Omigod, that's apparently a fudamental issue, it's always true,
new modifiers can _never_ modify PASS to less-than-PASS or FAIL
to less-than-FAIL.
"As soon as you really need this you would also need a new
SPF-version - same problem as 'new mechanism'" - is this really
correct ? If yes I'd add it to the op-draft. Actually _that_
could be also something for the RfC (AUTH48 or any new attempt
to publish SPF as PS).
I think not. I don't propose to change what fail means. I propose to give
the receiver additional information to inform their policy. Fail is still
Fail, but maybe you are willing to go to DATA on the promise of DKIM.
From the receiver's view, SPF is about deciding whether or not to go on to
DATA. Op DKIM is additional information to help the receiver make the
decision. Fail is still Fail, the question is what to do with it.
Scott K
-------
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