On Sunday, January 29, 2012 08:44:26 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Scott Kitterman Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:23 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [marf] Additional dkim-reporting report type requests > > > > "p" is embedded in SPF already. If the SPF result is fail and you are > > rejecting due to SPF, it's by definition a policy issue. > > We're using "policy" differently. An SPF example might be that SPF > evaluation passes, but the Verifier demands that SPF only be given credit > when the policy includes "-all", and anything else can't truly be trusted. > That would be a case where local policy overrides what SPF says, and you > actually treat a "pass" as something other than a "pass". That's probably > a contrived example but you get the idea.
OK. I would say that's not an SPF result at all. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
