spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [spf-discuss] Re: Is best guess moronic?

2005-11-18 13:32:41

-----Original Message-----
From: Hector Santos [mailto:spf-discuss(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com]
Sent: vrijdag 18 november 2005 20:29
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Is best guess moronic?


Your perl script will still work and more importantly standard implemen-
tation will understand that a NONE is a NONE, not a PASS.

It's my Perl script now? :)

I have personally never found cause to enable 'best-guess'. But it is
in the nature of receiver policy (the "Your MTA, you rules" adage)
that receivers can accept pretty much all mail they want.

Thats fine, but a standard SPF implementations will not understands this
false PASS notification. It knows nothing about this BEST GUESS because
it is not expecting it. However, it will know a NONE was the REAL re-
sult. It wasn't a PASS.

Hector, you really should express yourself properly; 'best-guess' does not
change the meaning of "Pass"; instead, it changes the SPF-result from
"None" to "Pass". That's a huge difference. Local policy can do that. Like
I said, 'trusted', to "include:spf.trusted-forwarder.org", will do the
same: it does not change the meaning of "Pass". But what it can do, under
certain circumstances, is change the SPF-result to "Pass".

All mechs like 'trusted' and 'best-guess' do, is widen the condition for
which "Pass" might be the result. So is 'trusted => 1' no more than
saying: "pass when this or that condition is met +
include:spf.trusted-forwarder.org". It merely extends the range for which
"Pass" becomes possible.

'best-guess' is like "include:spf.trusted-forwarder.org" in that regard;
only more crude; not moronic, per se, but more crude; because it makes a
best guess based on nothing more than IP proximity, if I may so put it,
and ptr and mx. As such, in its crudeness, I never found much use for it.

Thats fine, but a standard SPF implementations will not understands this
false PASS notification. It knows nothing about this BEST GUESS because

Err; "a standard SPF implementation" does not receive a PASS notification,
but rather generates one itself (if you could so call it that, in the
Received-SPF header).

Furthermore, "a standard SPF implementation" cannot possible be adversely
affected by someone's local policy, except at the 'locality' in question.
And that is always a local choice. Not my choice, because, like I said, I
find 'best-guess' too crude be of real value to me.

But if someone out there says, "I want to extend the range for when 'Pass'
occurs to include the 'best-guess' mechanism," then such a person is no
more changing the meaning of "Pass" than the person who decides to, say,
"include:spf.trusted-forwarder.org".

- Mark 
 
        System Administrator Asarian-host.org
 
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx

-------
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