> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott > Kitterman > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:12 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-07.txt > > >Now that I think of it, another compromise would be language like > >"SHOULD NOT ... unless ..." followed by an explicit example of when we > >would think it's safe to violate the SHOULD NOT. That strengthens it > >without going all the way to a MUST NOT. > > > >Any suggestions? > > If I could come up with a useful case for after the unless, I'd be > happy with this.
How about: Similarly, if a report generator applies SPF to arriving messages, and that evaluation produced something other than a "Pass", "None" or "Neutral" result, a report addressed to the RFC5321.MailFrom domain SHOULD NOT be generated as it might be a forgery and thus not actionable. A valid exception would be specific knowledge that the SPF check is expected to fail for that domain under those circumstances. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
