+1 from me too, except that we should just remove it from the draft rather than deprecate it.
-Jim Michael Thomas wrote: > Hopefully not adding to the noise, but I've seen about 5 people +1 > my suggestion that t=testing should go. > > Mike > > Jon Callas wrote: >> -----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 > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
