On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
IMHO there is enough confusion already with neutral and softfail. If
we want to provide for more, and still not block, why don't we just
allow to set the "mark" value numerically, specifying the score that
should be added or subtracted? E.g.
The distinction between rawfail and fail is not quantitative -- this is
why I call it "rawfail" and not "hardfail".
Fail still means 100.00% confidence of rejection *if the validator is sure
the message is not a forward*.
Rawfail makes the *qualitative* change of telling the validator not to
worry about the risk of forwarding false positives.
If 5 outcomes (pass,neutral,softfail,fail,rawfail) is really too much,
then I nominate softfail for removal in SPFv3 to make room for rawfail.
---- Michael Deutschmann <michael(_at_)talamasca(_dot_)ocis(_dot_)net>
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
[http://www.listbox.com/member/]
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/2183229-668e5d0d
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=2183229&id_secret=2183229-a7234b15
Unsubscribe Now:
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=2183229&id_secret=2183229-98aa0fe6&post_id=20110204064320:F5CA8B08-3053-11E0-B992-CE913F19DB66
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com