> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 9:44 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-00.txt > > A second point is the idea of a "conditional" report. That may mean, > e.g., only send me an SPF-failure report if you verified a DKIM > signature for the same domain name. By enabling reporting, one will > likely receive an inordinate amount of spam generated notifications: > it will be useful to check mail settings of a new domain, but will > turned off after a short time. Conditional reporting, instead, can be > kept permanently enabled. What do you think?
I'm wary of going down this road. Although the current suite of extension drafts goes into only DKIM and SPF, it's possible (maybe likely) that other message evaluation schemes will be added here later. A true-false table of just DKIM and SPF has a size of four; adding one more makes it eight, etc. Eventually putting policy information able to account for all combinations into the DNS will become completely ugly. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
