-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote:
I'd really like to avoid telling receivers what to do with "Fail".
No, but we need to tell receivers what senders *want* them
to do with "Fail". I've talked to big company receivers that were
afraid to reject on "Fail" because they might get sued for rejecting
important mail. They need a clear "No, really, it is ok to reject SPF
FAIL, in fact, we really wish you would. We wouldn't publish it if we
didn't want you to." That is not "telling the receiver what to do",
but communicating the senders wishes clearly. That is, after all, what
*Sender* Policy Framework purports to do. The receiver can still
choose to follow the senders wishes. Or not. But at least they know
what they are.
I'm familiar with that debate. However, given the existence of
"SoftFail", making "Fail" anything OTHER than "yes, we really mean it"
would be pointless. Thus it's just a matter of making it clear that
"Fail" bears the possibility of messages getting rejected. On the other
hand, isn't that what the current definition of "Fail" already says?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHhDo1wL7PKlBZWjsRAhzDAKDfYu934coPk2TDu6OddyVrZTsmewCgoF//
VlO2vc5Nz/Y5aeEJizA+Ns0=
=9DKj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------------------------------------
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:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=2183229&id_secret=83486079-407764
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com