Re: SPFv3 proposal: rawfail result

On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> IMHO there is enough confusion already with neutral and softfail.  If
> we want to provide for more, and still not block, why don't we just
> allow to set the "mark" value numerically, specifying the score that
> should be added or subtracted?  E.g.

The distinction between rawfail and fail is not quantitative -- this is
why I call it "rawfail" and not "hardfail".

Fail still means 100.00% confidence of rejection *if the validator is sure
the message is not a forward*.

Rawfail makes the *qualitative* change of telling the validator not to
worry about the risk of forwarding false positives.


If 5 outcomes (pass,neutral,softfail,fail,rawfail) is really too much,
then I nominate softfail for removal in SPFv3 to make room for rawfail.

---- Michael Deutschmann <[email protected]>