On Oct 4, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote: > SPF FAIL reports are also weird, SPF FAIL should be rejected, > getting rid of the backscatter is the main point of SPF FAIL. > > There SHOULD NOT be a way how the "purported senders" could > "opt-in" to SPF FAIL reports, because that is the point of > SPF SOFTFAIL. The [CFWS] in the ABNF makes me also nervous > for the known reasons.
Some sites don't reject on SPF FAIL alone, preferring to add that datum to a scoring or reputation system to determine what to do with the message. -- J.D. Falk the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
