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

On 25/Oct/11 21:21, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 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 [...])

This somehow assumes that "receiver policy" and "sender policy" are
two unrelated areas.  Yes, it is a recurrent topic.  Some time ago
Julian wrote

   The problem with mandating receiver policy is that receivers are
   going to ignore it at will.  Receivers will always do what they
   think is best for them.

That is obviously true of any IETF standard.  However, in order to let
senders know whether they're safe using macros, in case we happen to
know that senders should not reject on PermError, we'd better document
that.

> 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 an ambiguous way to tell which cases are interesting.  And
"MAY", "SHOULD", or "MUST" are much clearer than "interesting" anyway.
(Or perhaps we could explain in greater detail how to reject for the
cases that are more interesting :-)

jm2c