"Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> -----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. Then there's also no way to tell which case it is from the header. I don't think that solves the problem. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
