"Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> -----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.) > >? Looks good. Thanks, Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
