On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Seth Goodman wrote:
as if there were no SPF record. I can understand this desire on the
part of the sender, but consider it from the recipient's point of view.
What might the recipient do differently if the result for a listed host
were neutral rather than pass?
My system depends on extensive whitelists and blacklists. I can't
use the domain whitelist for a *message* without SPF PASS (because
the message might be forged), and I can't blacklist a *domain* without SPF PASS
(because the message might be forged and not actually from that domain).
So, yes, PASS/NEUTRAL policies are quite useful to this recipient.
Yes, it would be even nicer if it was PASS/FAIL, but PASS/NEUTRAL is
a lot better than nothing.
And NEUTRAL/FAIL is a lot better than nothing. Because I can reject all
the fails outright.
--
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/?list_id=735