> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 3:16 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-09.txt
>
> Assuming (and I think it's a safe assumption) that SPFbis sticks with
> interoperability with current deployments as a goal, it can't change.
> Fundamentally, if the results codes codes change now, it's not really
> SPF v1 anymore. I think it's a safe presumption for the next 5 - 10
> years and probably much longer.
Then how about:
spf: The evaluation of the author domain's SPF record produced a "none",
"fail", "softfail", "temperror" or "permerror" result. ("none" is not strictly
a failure per [SPF], but a service that demands successful SPF evaluations of
clients could treat it like a failure.)
?
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
