-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 10, 2007, at 11:30 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> Frank Ellermann wrote:
>> Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Part of the problem is that "softfail" and "hardfail" don't make
>>> much intuitive sense.
>>>
>>
>> For SPF (and Sender ID) a SOFTFAIL is what SSP has as t-flag, and
>> an Authentication-Results: hardfail is just a FAIL (for SPF etc.).
>>
>> For receivers accepting "hardfail", not exactly the ideal course,
>> but receivers are free to shoot into their own foot. Aim higher.
>>
>
> Well, FWIW, I don't think that t=testing is at all helpful either.
> What,
> for example, does p=strict, t=testing mean? It seems like a silly-
> state
> to me and ripe for confusion. It's that sort of subjective state
> that we
> should both learn from SPF and avoid.
+1
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 2.6.3
Charset: US-ASCII
wj8DBQFHXuu9sTedWZOD3gYRAofuAJ9/TesTABB8OBTtVTW2043Trt44cQCeP/Mv
ayarO/REQJPrUtYPxgZ5rLY=
=g5/Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
