That would probably be a question better placed on the SPFbis list, and
(IETF veterans, keep me honest) it probably wouldn't be able to be
addressed fully unless SPFter becomes a thing at some point.
Outside of unnecessary/unexpected uses of it (due to reasons outlined
previously in the thread), there's still valid, expected, and reasonable
use cases of it as it stands today. Personally, I don't see a need for
it to be deprecated.
- Mark Alley
On 4/7/2024 7:52 AM, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
Forgive me if this a dumb idea but, Scott and others, any discussion of just
deprecating SPF hardfail at some point?
On Apr 6, 2024, at 1:40 PM, John Levine<[email protected]> wrote:
It appears that Scott Kitterman<[email protected]> said:
I hear you. Your operational issue is my system working as designed. DMARC
works on top of SPF, it doesn't change it.
Anything like this belongs in an operational guidance document, not in the
protocol description. I have no problem describing the trade offs in an
appropriate document, but I don't think this is it.
I agree. "Don't do stupid stuff" goes in an A/S, not in the spec.
I entirely believe people are confused about SPF, but they're confused
about everything. A few days ago on the generally clueful NANOG list
we had to explain to someone that rejecting mail if DKIM signatures
don't verify is not a good idea.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
