On Wednesday, January 04, 2012 03:16:40 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Scott Kitterman Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 3:11 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report- > > 09.txt > > > > I'm sorry I didn't notice this before, but I think that: > > spf: The evaluation of the author domain's SPF record produced a > > > > "fail", "softfail", "temperror" or "permerror" result. > > > > should also include "none". For some policy scenarios that would be > > considered a failure, so we ought to be able to express it. > > Wouldn't you assert "fail" in that case?
No. I'm describing a case where from a policy perspective any SPF result !pass would be considered a failure of authentication (a mail stream that is expected to be 100% authenticated). In this case the SPF result = none, but it's still a failure of authentication (and yes, such mail streams do exist in production). Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
