On Thu, 25 May 2006, Julian Mehnle wrote:
--[PinePGP]--------------------------------------------------[begin]--
Julian Mehnle wrote:
You correctly point out that TempError should be for conditions that
are likely to resolve themselves. But on the other hand, we don't
want PermError to be implementation defined. Maybe we should have
had an ImplLimitError result.
Good idea for the future. For now, however, I did not say that
"PermError" should be returned. What I said is that it should be
treated as "no match" for the mechanism in question.
That is even worse than PermError - because then the SPF result
is implementation defined.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------
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