-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
So perhaps indeed we need a "softpass". Others (like you)
might say instead that we need a "hardpass", because they
consider today's "pass" a "softpass".
Existing policies use PASS for both purposes. Assuming default
"soft" and offering an explicit (opt-in) "hard" is the only way
forward I can see.
it would have to be defined very thoroughly.
Is anything wrong with the op=auth text ?
Not substantially. In fact I'm planning on implementing support for
the "op=" modifier in Mail::SPF.
The description of "op=auth" fails to make an explicit point of the
difference between v=spf1 Pass's authorization semantics and the
additionally offered authentication semantics. In fact, it doesn't even
mention the word "authenticity" once. I think it should.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFESgfwL7PKlBZWjsRArPBAJsEu9T/J+wXK+kzYUp+ZqKyX7sykQCfZp23
/2q3Rv1oQC1wF7Dphlev9Go=
=N9jL
-----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