| 1 |
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 07:19:44PM +0200 or thereabouts, Alin Nastac wrote: |
| 2 |
> I say we should have +all (SPF-capable MTAs will consider any IP address |
| 3 |
> as authorized to send mail on behalf of g.o - equivalent with "Message |
| 4 |
> source OK"). |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
this interpretation is correct. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> He says we should have ?all (when another SPF-capable MTA will check the |
| 9 |
> my IP address, it will take my message with a grain of salt - equivalent |
| 10 |
> with "Message source unknown"). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
this interpretation is not correct. What you are describing is ~all, not |
| 13 |
?all. ?all instructs the MTA to make no interpretation at all related to a |
| 14 |
failure. In other words, do not add or subtract any salt whatsoever.[1] |
| 15 |
~all tells the MTA to add some salt.[2] |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
--kurt |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
[1] http://new.openspf.org/RFC_4408#op-result-neutral |
| 20 |
[2] http://new.openspf.org/RFC_4408#op-result-softfail |
Archives