-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Never ever send DSNs to unauthenticated return-path
...I certainly hope that we get to this point using SPF PASS
or FAIL. But we're not yet there, it's a transitional phase,
and good actors are confronted with NONE / NEUTRAL mails from
unknown strangers.
True.
If what you have in mind is "dropping NONE / NEUTRAL is okay",
then I'm not sure how that will end.
No, I just said: don't bounce on None, Neutral, or anything besides Pass.
However, sooner or later we'll have to reach the situation where anything
other than Pass can be rejected, or SPF will have failed. And I'm not
just thinking about SPFv1's IP-based path-auth mechanisms. If necessary
to get most senders on board and thus covering most mail strictly with
either Pass or Fail, SPF will have to give senders more policy options
_besides_ IP-based path-auth, i.e. DKIM, PGP, S/MIME, etc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFE9oz5wL7PKlBZWjsRAoz1AJ9Bv4R2SM3CD7cLfTG6D5PgMVcBUgCfRHDS
7uJZXTegQecp8ySEaZxXSys=
=3tgf
-----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