spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] Re: Is this SPF record valid

2006-05-04 16:33:12
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
The "lax" mode annoys the sender with a DSN containing the permerror
diagnostic (and rejects the message if the DSN is not accepted) before
applying a successful heuristic.  The Received-SPF header still says
permerror.

In no way does "lax" mode transmute a permerror into a pass.  The only
thing "lax" mode heuristics do is change the local policy as to
whether to accept a message with SPF permerror.  I add my own
"X-Guessed-SPF" header to record the result of the heuristics.

Perhaps the DSN should annoy postmaster(_at_)sending(_dot_)domain also.  In 
any
case, users don't like their mail getting rejected just because
the senders postmaster couldn't be bothered to test his SPF record
for basic syntax before deploying it.

Fair enough, but how likely is it that the postmaster has checked the SPF 
record for /non-basic/ correctness if he hasn't checked it for /basic/ 
correctness?  Are you going to second-guess him on "ipv4:1.2.3.4" and
"a:1.2.3.4" issues as well? </devils-advocate>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEWo8FwL7PKlBZWjsRAmTpAKD1YMLO13P8Uq64WGa0RVtaH907CACg+yY4
VMH59y7U69hQcXl/qGH99CY=
=jtCE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>