It's good practice to read the standard before implementing it. For permerror, 550 with 5.5.2 status code must be used, it's RFC 7208 requirement for one, who decides to block delivery based on SPF error. 451 with 4.4.3 status code should only be used for temperror, such as DNS timeout . Using 4xx for permerror is not good for sender, because he will not be aware e-mail is not delivered before some timeout and there is little chance for administrator to notice the problem in reasonable time. For temperror 4xx is used, because there is a high chance the problem is general (e.g. connectivity issues) and will be resolved.
18.05.2017 19:16, Dominique Rousseau пишет: > Le Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:34:30PM -0400, D'Arcy Cain [da...@vex.net] a écrit: > [... broken SPF ...] >> My personal preference is to just bounce it and make them fix their >> records but it is becoming a support problem because the senders are >> not reading the bounce message which explains the problem and has a >> link to a page with more detail. They simply contact our users >> saying that it must be our problem. > You could soft-bounce with 4xx error code stating the problem > encountered. The "good" sending administrators would then view their > outgoing queues growing, have a clue about the problem, correct it, and > let the spool catch-up. > For the "bad" ones, their queues would pile up anf finally bounce to > their users. > > Else, I would consider "broken SPF" as "no SPF" rather than fail. > -- Vladimir Dubrovin @Mail.Ru
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
