Re: New SPF modifiers

Tim Draegen wrote:

> Hi, I posted some feedback on the proposed SPF modifiers on the MARF
> IETF list.

I'll have to check that out.

> Here are my relevant-to-SPF comments: 
>
> =======================================
> - I'm having a hard time understanding how the SPF "reportopts" will be
> used.  The publisher of the record adds the policy piece of SPF that
> leads to a (fail, softfail, neutral) result, usually by adding
> something like "-all" or "~all" to their record.
>
> EG, using the proposed syntax, I could write "v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.4
> report=email.address reportopts=f ~all". This would specify that I want
> reports on all SPF "fails" (distinct from "softfails").  However, my
> "~all" means that all my non-authorized email will end up receiving
> "softfails", resulting in me receiving zero reports.
>
> - Lots of real-world SPF records "include:" other records.  What if two
> report-related extensions appear due to the use of include:?

I'll have to check out that draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting draft, but I'd 
hope that all non-top-level "report=" modifiers are to be ignored.
I think such a modifier should only ever concern the *sender* domain 
("sender" as specified in RFC 4408, section 4.1).

> - SPF records describe "mechanisms" for identifying authorized servers
> and "modifiers".  The extensions are "modifiers", but I'm uncertain if
> these will break existing SPF code, or if various implementors did the
> right the thing.

They SHOULD ignore unknown modifiers, but I hear what you're saying.  
FWIW, the RFC 4408 test suite <http://www.openspf.org/Test_Suite> has a 
test case named "modifier-charset-good" that effectively tests for 
whether unknown modifiers are tolerated and ignored:

  http://www.openspf.org/svn/project/test-suite/rfc4408-tests-2009.10.yml

-Julian