| 1 |
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 17:37 +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 07:19:44PM +0200 or thereabouts, Alin Nastac wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I say we should have +all (SPF-capable MTAs will consider any IP address |
| 4 |
> > as authorized to send mail on behalf of g.o - equivalent with "Message |
| 5 |
> > source OK"). |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> this interpretation is correct. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> > He says we should have ?all (when another SPF-capable MTA will check the |
| 10 |
> > my IP address, it will take my message with a grain of salt - equivalent |
| 11 |
> > with "Message source unknown"). |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> this interpretation is not correct. What you are describing is ~all, not |
| 14 |
> ?all. ?all instructs the MTA to make no interpretation at all related to a |
| 15 |
> failure. In other words, do not add or subtract any salt whatsoever.[1] |
| 16 |
> ~all tells the MTA to add some salt.[2] |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> --kurt |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> [1] http://new.openspf.org/RFC_4408#op-result-neutral |
| 21 |
> [2] http://new.openspf.org/RFC_4408#op-result-softfail |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Not advocating either option...just pasting additional info. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If anyone wants to see the VERY brief discussion that was had over at SA |
| 26 |
about why they decided to ignore the standard (or moreso what they |
| 27 |
decided the standard actually meant) check out [1]. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
--Dan |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
[1] http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3616 |
Archives