Dnia 21-08-2006, pon o godzinie 11:40 -0400, Matthew Miller napisał(a): > > machine claiming to send on behalf of a domain is not listed in a TXT > > record for that domain, then it is a roque sender and therefor fake, > > and therefor should be dropped. > It should *not* be dropped -- it should be flagged for further inspection. > This is the only way to make SPF compatible with the existing internet. You're both right and wrong. You're right - SPF has to be compatible, so the messages from non-SPF hosts should be flagged. But in case of redhat.com we see that the sysadmin specifically wants all other email to be dropped (-all, "fail"), not flagged (~all, "softfail"). This is wrong of course for a domain hosting large public lists, but that's specifically what someone entered: reject, not mark. All this thread went to discussion about SPF usefulness and why a program should not change behavior without any change in the configuration. But the parent was talking about a bug when this particular Perl module returned SPF failure for a host which was published (maybe because it was ip4 with a prefix length?). Or was forwarding the cause? :) Lam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: To jest =?UTF-8?Q?cz=C4=99=C5=9B=C4=87?= listu podpisana cyfrowo
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
