Subject: Re: [spfbis] Rejecting mail on SPF Fail as a requirement

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 10:01:33 -0400

Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Hi SM, WG, chairs,
>
>On Fri 24/Aug/2012 23:13:24 +0200 S Moonesamy wrote:
>> 
>> I strongly suggest not to pursue further discussion about rejecting
>> mail on SPF Fail as a requirement.  Please post a message to the
>> SPFBIS mailing list if you have any objection to the above.
>
>It is obviously ridiculous to state that SPF is not concerned with the
>possibility to reject mail.  IMHO, it is an hysterical second best to
>consider receiver policies as casually related to SPF, rather than an
>integral part of it.  The acrobatics that the RFC 4408 exhibits,
>albeit valuable, seem to be a consequence of the MARID climate.
>
>Have we cooled down?  Then let's put a MAY or whatever, for the sake
>of a clearer spec.  OTOH, if we're still unable to discuss this
>subject constructively, I accept SM's suggestion as quoted above.  In
>the latter case, however, I'd appreciate if the reasons to ban such
>discussions are explained in more depth:  Such analysis may also be
>useful whenever further work on SPF will be taken into consideration.

This has nothing to do with MARID. REC 4408 was written by people who were involved in SPF before MARID and who weren't much influenced by it.

The lack of receiver policy requirements is not accidental.  MAY is not a requirement.

Scott K