-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hector Santos wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
I think you are still using the old (pre-MARID/2004) recursion
limits. The current approach is a little different:
I see. But this is one of those things that was changed without much
insight to the repercussions. :-)
You see it as PERMERROR. Classic SPF implementations sees it as a
SOFTFAIL.
I checked the various drafts for what they had to say about processing
limits:
draft-mengwong-spf.02.9.4: "unknown" (AKA "PermError")
draft-mengwong-spf-{00,01}: "unknown" (AKA "PermError")
spf-draft-200406: "unknown" (AKA "PermError")
draft-lentczner-spf-00: "PermError" ("TempError" for timeouts)
draft-schlitt-spf-classic-{00-02}: "PermError" ("TempError" for timeouts)
rfc4408: "PermError" ("TempError" for timeouts)
I know of no draft that declares a violation of the processing limits a
"SoftFail". I know of no implementation (possibly besides yours), either,
that generates a "SoftFail" in this situation.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEXhovwL7PKlBZWjsRAllGAJ97Lz7misHg+EmFVyBvvClmegyfgACfZW2Y
xsRMBG33xsI1UCceffIXNk4=
=S7cJ
-----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