----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
No, but Mail::SPF::Query was supposed to be a
reference implementation, so it shouldn't do best guess.
I agree. It should be a separate call - to be made after
SPF returns none. If Mail::SPF:Query does best guess without
your specifically asking it to, it is indeed broken.
Even it as was turned on automatically or by demand, don't you think the
header:
Received-SPF: pass (... Best Guess...)
is wrong?
For standard SPF support mail filters reading the header who are ignorant of
the best guess feature, it will get the wrong signal (and maybe score) with
a PASS. It won't know anything about this "best guess" tag.
IMO, at the very least, it should follow the SPF specs first and if they
want to put some "other tag" within the description, that would make it more
consistent with the base SPF specification:
Received-SPF: none (... Best Guess...)
As long as it doesn't alter the base SPF result, I'm all good with that
because it doesn't break anything and doesn't change the real fact about the
no SPF result.
Thanks
--
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