On 5 October 2011 22:44, J.D. Falk wrote: > 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.
That's their choice. I'd still claim that this is "lossy" (sender with a broken policy will never know that his mail rots in some junk folder and will be eventually purged.) If the sender wants to debug such issues they can use SOFTFAIL, and hopefully get reports. The concept of a FAIL report confuses me, because it's at odds with the SPF FAIL semantics. As you said this would anyway only affect receivers accepting FAIL. BTW, SPF already permits a kind of tracking based on its "exists:" mechanism not directly depending on the receiver policy. (Unless "we never evaluate 'exists:'" is a part of this receiver policy.) I'm no fan of these baroque SPF features, but they exist, and the draft should mention that SPF FAIL reports are a rather odd idea. -Frank _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
