[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Revising SOFTFAIL

2008-01-05 06:14:18
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote:
However I do like the idea of making it more clear that the ~ qualifier is
supposed to be a testing tool, not a permanent band-aid for SPF's alleged
"forwarding problem" as many domain owners seem to think.

My understanding it is that it is neither a forwarding band-aid nor a
testing tool.  It's a band-aid for a different problem -- that of users
who roam to other ISPs (perhaps using a laptop), and send their mail
either direct-to-MX or via a different ISP's smarthost.  In theory, SMTP
AUTH obviates the need, but in practice it may take awhile before all
users get the word.

A sensible receiver policy is to not reject based on softfail alone, but
also to ignore any whitelist entry on that address unless the recipient
has other softfail messages from that address which he has not marked as

Using ?all or ~all as a forwarding band-aid is bad -- it destroys
relevant information.

---- Michael Deutschmann <michael(_at_)talamasca(_dot_)ocis(_dot_)net>

Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription: 
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>