On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 17:37 +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 07:19:44PM +0200 or thereabouts, Alin Nastac wrote: > > I say we should have +all (SPF-capable MTAs will consider any IP address > > as authorized to send mail on behalf of g.o - equivalent with "Message > > source OK"). > > this interpretation is correct. > > > He says we should have ?all (when another SPF-capable MTA will check the > > my IP address, it will take my message with a grain of salt - equivalent > > with "Message source unknown"). > > this interpretation is not correct. What you are describing is ~all, not > ?all. ?all instructs the MTA to make no interpretation at all related to a > failure. In other words, do not add or subtract any salt whatsoever.[1] > ~all tells the MTA to add some salt.[2] > > --kurt > > [1] http://new.openspf.org/RFC_4408#op-result-neutral > [2] http://new.openspf.org/RFC_4408#op-result-softfail
Not advocating either option...just pasting additional info. If anyone wants to see the VERY brief discussion that was had over at SA about why they decided to ignore the standard (or moreso what they decided the standard actually meant) check out [1]. --Dan [1] http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3616
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
