Re: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (4082)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 14 August 2014 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E881A6F1F for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NRdZL2UM_yZM for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22c.google.com (mail-we0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C9A11A0266 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f172.google.com with SMTP id x48so1444672wes.17 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=KRma8wK73jNtdmip/t+ZBCzpc2HqAvcggQXwpf+A6z8=; b=Nla9M9PFVrWFcD874vJBzENgg+2dYuBVpV1TGZcPXbULccY8yZLY5e2095KPiIZz5L edMA0ZfZXWKqzWV2tIfjQsWKKUqCAN5Eauv3IEkbFH4lXC9AOaKE/UGLaWmz+AmNMB2Q VhN+918OejYrT+toRew1eNkFZB44W6hIpJ7QPRrhyS0HREBaKeIneoxGhCgO3CxikEt8 pDbm45JEyc/aghed5Qj1j0tkxbw4oY/kyBiHEXvd9HoUwj9WaBQSPeKE8pYcVrSB46pl PATpyeRuWuKCWqhrwIMboEvqH+GTW7/iddxEkLLWA0ZPq1w40Yt0R6sh9UpIhKyvJtD5 pYxQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.75.14 with SMTP id y14mr14720756wiv.79.1408041314825; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.35.42 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140813231306.9680818000E@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20140813231306.9680818000E@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:35:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZ54UW+WC-AJPRuW02Am-zyM=2DeLh3bnz-wKT6Cr6JFQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043c8200663d1305009b2aaa"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/QcjYNLlwpojz4EpOz9ju_Gd_Kdo
Cc: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>, d.stussy@yahoo.com, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (4082)
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 18:35:17 -0000

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:13 PM, RFC Errata System <
rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:

> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7208,
> "Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email,
> Version 1".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7208&eid=4082
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: D. Stussy <d.stussy@yahoo.com>
>
> Section: 8.7
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> ...  If the message is rejected during the SMTP transaction for
> this reason, the software SHOULD use an SMTP reply code of 550
> and, if supported, the 5.5.2 enhanced status code ...
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> ...  If the message is rejected during the SMTP transaction for
> this reason, the software SHOULD use an SMTP reply code of 550
> and, if supported, the 5.7.8 enhanced status code ...
>

I disagree.  5.7.8 specifically refers to AUTH (as in SMTP AUTH, RFC 4954 I
believe) in its definition.  SPF failures have nothing to do with AUTH.

-MSK