> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott > Kitterman > Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 3:21 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-09.txt > > 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).
Right, so what I'm saying is that for the case where a "typical" installation might report "none", for policy reasons you could instead report "fail". It's not a change to the SPF evaluation mechanism, just how you report it. The one case where this breaks down is where you want to be able to detect the difference yet treat them the same way. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
