On Thursday, January 05, 2012 02:58:20 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Scott Kitterman Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:41 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: > > draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-09.txt > > > > > spf: The evaluation of the author domain's SPF record produced > > > something other than a "pass" result, which the report generator > > > considers to be a reportable incident. This can include the usual > > > set > > > of failure results, or any result that is considered a failure under > > > local policy constraints.> > > I think it's a mistake to report non-SPF results as SPF result. This > > includes policy overrides or the results of some hypothetical SPF > > extension. > > I'm specifically trying to enable your "none" case without calling it out, > because I don't want to have to add another non-pass code later. "pass" is > really the only case that isn't reportable, so the above language seems to > cover all the possibilities without enumerating them.
Except you've got all the other non-pass SPF results already, so the list would be complete (it's not an open ended list). It seems far simpler to me to add the one missing one than dance around it. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
