Re: RFC 4408 Errata - PermError on invalid domains after macro expansion

On 25 October 2011 20:33, Alessandro Vesely wrote:

> Because "RFC 4408 deliberately steered clear of
> trying to specify receiver policy", considering
> the possibility to reject is tantamount to
> suggesting such behavior.

Well, it was specified in one or more drafts, it
somehow vanished in the RFC, I appealed that, the
Council at this time confirmed that it should be
documented, it got an erratum, and IIRC another
Council confirmed the erratum.

Any step with long threads on this list.  The RFC
doesn't exactly tell you what to do with SOFTFAIL,
TEMPERROR, PERMERROR, or NEUTRAL (of course you're
free to reject SPF PASS if it's a known spammer or
similar, and you are also free to accept FAIL if
you have a good reason to ignore the only "SHOULD"
in this context, because this could result in lost
mails if you don't know the consequences in your
setup - junk folder - purge - oops - the works).

For the more interesting cases the spec. tells you
how to reject it *IF* you reject it, for FAIL, for
SOFTFAIL, and for TEMPERROR.  Omitting this only
for PERMERROR always was an error.  It is a simple
interop consideration, everybody picking their own
idea of SMTP + DSN code can't be good.

If that is irrelevant for you because you'd never
reject PERMERROR simply ignore the SMTP + DSN code.

-Frank

P.S. (unrelated):  Murray + Hector try to document
Graylisting on the SMTP list in different drafts.