[gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/infrastructure: spf.xml

[Robin H. Johnson (robbat2)]

robbat2     10/08/23 18:59:45

  Modified:             spf.xml
  Log:
  Finish style cleanup of SPF reasoning doc.

Revision  Changes    Path
1.6                  xml/htdocs/proj/en/infrastructure/spf.xml

file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/infrastructure/spf.xml?rev=1.6&view=markup
plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/infrastructure/spf.xml?rev=1.6&content-type=text/plain
diff : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/infrastructure/spf.xml?r1=1.5&r2=1.6

Index: spf.xml
===================================================================
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/infrastructure/spf.xml,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -p -w -b -B -u -u -r1.5 -r1.6
--- spf.xml	23 Aug 2010 18:37:55 -0000	1.5
+++ spf.xml	23 Aug 2010 18:59:45 -0000	1.6
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
 <abstract>
 This guide documents some of the reasons why (and how) Gentoo utilizes SPF.  
 </abstract>
-<version>1.2</version>
+<version>1.3</version>
 <date>2010-08-23</date>
 
 <chapter>
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ those servers.  
 For Gentoo, our SPF record is currently:
 </p>
 <pre caption="gentoo.org SPF record">
-"v=spf1 mx ptr ?all"
+v=spf1 mx ptr ?all
 </pre>
 
 <p>
@@ -58,18 +58,18 @@ Which breaks down as:
 <dt>?all</dt> <dd>if you receive an email from an MTA not on this list, please treat it neutrally.  (i.e. do not make decisions based solely on this fact)</dd>
 </dl>
 <p>
-The ?all is intended to be a transitional phase, with the ultimate goal being
-to move to ~all or even -all, which are more definitive.
+The <c>?all</c> is intended to be a transitional phase, with the ultimate goal being
+to move to <c>~all</c> or even <c>-all</c>, which are more definitive.
 </p>
 <p>
 Some people have objected to the fact that SpamAssassin adds ~1 to the overall
-spam score for ?all records.  SPF is a tool and, like any other tool, people
-can do smart things with it and they can do stupid things with it.  I'm not
-saying the SA guys are stupid -- merely that they've chosen to use the tool a
-certain way that conflicts with what the SPF standard calls for.  As you can
-tell from the SA test name (SPF_NEUTRAL), SPF calls for records using ?all to
-treat MTAs sending mail on behalf of that domain neutrally.  SPF should not be
-faulted if SA chooses to go another route.
+spam score for <c>?all</c> records.  SPF is a tool and, like any other tool,
+people can do smart things with it and they can do stupid things with it. This
+is not saying the SA developers are stupid -- merely that they've chosen to use
+the tool a certain way that conflicts with what the SPF standard calls for.  As
+you can tell from the SA test name (SPF_NEUTRAL), SPF calls for records using
+<c>?all</c> to treat MTAs sending mail on behalf of that domain neutrally.  SPF
+should not be faulted if SA chooses to go another route.
 </p>
 <p>
 SA provides users with ways of overriding or ignoring this score on a per-user
@@ -110,14 +110,16 @@ To: john@×××.com
 Subject: check spam scores
 </pre>
 <p>
-which shows a mythical developer sending an email From: johndoe@g.o
+which shows a mythical developer sending an email <c>From: johndoe@g.o</c>
 using his gmail account.  Note that the SA score is actually reduced due to SPF
 in this particular case.
-
+</p>
+<p>
 Additionally, as has been the case for months, we allow developers to relay
 (via aSMTP) their outbound gentoo.org mail through dev.gentoo.org if they so
 choose, which also works around the specific issue with SA.
-
+</p>
+<p>
 Again, SPF is a tool.  Nothing more, nothing less.  All we do is provide
 information to other mail administrators.  How they decide to use it is up to
 them.