stuart at bmsi
Apr 6, 2008, 7:39 PM
Views: 601
Permalink
|
|
Re: [spf-devel] Last erratum last call (was: Upcoming new test-suite release)
|
|
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> > PermError => add note that this is about a syntactically invalid
> > <target-name> for DNS, for example adjacent dots.
> > you could still change your mind
>
> Nobody made new noises in this direction, therefore I edited
> the "last erratum" to say "no match". Please check that the
> proposed text says what you want:
You had me convinced that PermError was better than nomatch. Mainly
because literally putting a:example..com is a plausible typo that should
get a PermError, rather than silently failing to match. You made the
case that no legitimate sender should generate a PermError via macros.
(If the policy wants to accomodate braindead senders, don't use %{h}.)
My only reservation is that spammers could generate PermError via macros.
I was considering posting an auto-note to postmaster in case of PermError
in addition to a DSN, but PermError from macros would discourage that.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart[at]bmsi.com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
|
Re: [spf-devel] Last erratum last call (was: Upcoming new test-suite release)