On Jan 5, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> "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
+1
> _______________________________________________
> marf mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
