spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] SPFv3 proposal: rawfail result

2011-02-04 13:09:45
On 04/Feb/11 12:43, Michael Deutschmann wrote:
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*.

To me, it seems nearly impossible to formally define that difference
within the definition of the check_host function, in the face of
forgeries.


-------------------------------------------
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=20110204140917:423B2EDC-3092-11E0-A1D3-8CB316758DE9
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com