On Saturday 02 December 2006 17:07, 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.
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 think it's the SOFTPASS that's missing and Pass == HARDPASS.
IIRC, before RFC 4408 got published I asked for HARDPASS and was told that no,
that's what Pass means already, then I asked for SOFTPASS and was told that
since SOFTPASS would be treated by receivers no different than Neutral, there
was no need for it.
There has been a discussion of name based blacklisting based on SPF Pass in
the SPF web site FAQ since before I showed up here in May 2004.
I'll research the archives when I have some time.
Scott K
-------
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