On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 07:33 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
---->snippage
If checking for +all is justified then checking for */1 through */8 would
probably also be justified, perhaps with firing different rule so that a
different score could be applied.
---->more snippage
So does that mean it may be legitimate to treat an SPF PASS as "something
bad" if the SPF rule is defined in an "abusive" manner?
I think we'd get more flexibility by calling these something like
SPF_PERMISSIVE rather than lumping them into an existing 'bad' category,
Agreed. I was speculating that multiple variants of SPF_PERMISSIVE might
be justified, e.g. SPF_PERMISSIVE_ALL, SPF_PERMISSIVE_1, SPF_PERMISSIVE_8,
etc. However, it is only speculation; I have no data to support that
level of complexity being useful.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberals love sex ed because it teaches kids to be safe around their
sex organs. Conservatives love gun education because it teaches kids
to be safe around guns. However, both believe that the other's
education goals lead to dangers too terrible to contemplate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 days until the 67th anniversary of the dawn of the Atomic Age
