-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
Actually I find the remark "hair-splitting" insulting. If it is
not that important to you, you should not put so much effort in
getting it your way.
Look, the problem is that everytime this comes up, after a while I get
tired debating it, but it always comes up again later because I just can't
get this "Pass means I authorized the message, but don't blame me for it!"
concept into my head. It doesn't make sense to me. Not. Make. Sense. To.
Me. :-(
Frank Ellermann wrote:
It's IMNSHO an utter dubious idea to treat "?all" different from a "?"
elsewhere. It's also perfectly okay to offer "PASS or ?all" policies
for inclusion.
Who suggested any such thing?
If we can agree on that I could send a "publication request" for the
op=auth stuff to the IESG even if it's nowhere implemented, that would
offer the missing HARDPASS for those who want it.
I agreed on the idea of "op=auth" meaning that cross-user forgery would be
prevented. I even had added it to my own domain a while back. But this
has nothing to do with whether domain-based reputation can be applied. If
a domain insists that it does not want to (or is unable to) prevent
cross-user forgery, but abusive e-mail gets sent from hosts authorized by
that domain using that domain as the envelope sender, the domain will
still earn a bad reputation for using insecure infrastructure.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFchK6wL7PKlBZWjsRAuxLAJ0YXx3v2DUferzzh8BoB+BqDOsP0wCg9c4S
5Ucvx+Ii04k+b1pzB4qQmSY=
=lrih
-----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/?list_id=735