----- 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: Thursday, November 17, 2005 4:37 PM
Subject: [spf-discuss] Re: GMAIL mis-usage of SPF?
Hector Santos wrote:
It is BAD. It is terrible.
It's harmless, and the header field clearly said "best guess",
i.e. some kind of "receiver policy". In that case you get a
PASS for "plausible" and a NEUTRAL for "who knows". That's
still better than "NONE" if the "best guess" is good enough.
In theory you could also reject on a "best guess" FAIL base.
If it's clear that "best guess" is NOT a "sender policy" I
don't get why you are so excited, it's a receiver policy and
no new idea.
Bye, Frank
I get "so excited" because its a moronic idea.
"Look fellas, I don't have a SPF policy, yet you will use
an NON-SPF logic to verify me with SPF Notification
informatin."
Wonderful! Spammers lick their chops with crap like this.
It is part of the specs? No. So why it is in a Library
that some people will end up using? You might as well make
it part of the specs.
Sorry, Frank, call me what you like. Its stupid and if people
are scratching their heads as too why SPF gets a bad rap it is
because of moronic ideas like this.
Unbelievable!
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
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