Julian Mehnle wrote:
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
I'd really like to avoid telling receivers what to do with "Fail".
I beg your pardon, but I don't understand this point.
SPF, "Sender Policy Framework", is a standardized way to declare your mail
sending policies to receivers, i.e., through which hosts you send and
through which you don't send. The main aspect of the SPF spec is to
define how to construct these declarations and what they mean. What it
does NOT define is how receivers should react to those declarations and
to the results of evaluating them (with very few exceptions like "Neutral
must be treated exactly like None").
That makes sense. I would stress that SPF also exerts to make sure that
those declarations are authored by the subjects who have the legal rights
to do so.
Perhaps, you mean that telling receivers what to do after various
checks should be the subject of a separate rfc?
Some things are better left unspecified, best practice recommendations
notwithstanding.
I beg to disagree. A fuzzy definition is not helpful when it comes to
tools one needs to rely upon. RFCs should also provide terms that can
be used in legal writings aimed at granting civil rights.
SPF allows domains owners to state they bear no responsibility for
messages that FAIL to comply with the relevant policy, including
implied authorship and possible effects on the domains' reputation.
Then, who should be held responsible for the consequences of
delivering FAILed messages to an end user?
-------------------------------------------
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=84165927-6b0bcf
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com