On 4 October 2011 20:59, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: [Sender-ID obsolete] > I don't think MARF is in a position to be able to make that > statement explicitly.
I was only surprised how the draft managed this *implicitly*. > it seems including a "sender-id" result is on the table. Maybe the IESG will add one of their interesting notes about the (in)compatibilities of STD 4409bis "MAY add sender" and RFC 4407 "PRA". SPF FAIL reports are also weird, SPF FAIL should be rejected, getting rid of the backscatter is the main point of SPF FAIL. There SHOULD NOT be a way how the "purported senders" could "opt-in" to SPF FAIL reports, because that is the point of SPF SOFTFAIL. The [CFWS] in the ABNF makes me also nervous for the known reasons. -Frank _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
