[spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is not described explicitly
Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sat, 20 April 2013 09:56 UTC
Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E48321F8550 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 02:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mXhzBAWHhMZb for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 02:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D8F21F84D4 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 02:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1366451789; bh=vwVJuK/2/48YowwgqU06EomOB8y93b6LaW0nWX4yE/Y=; l=790; h=Date:From:To; b=erM1+HqokU/bopD+r4fitEMuHQoqO11NaaPnjV5FbVBHWOvf8PAoYfI9IuXuNnavi 1o22DRnMU6TNyb3lyWuJ0tZXn+cI2MVAx7c2ev/MyCG3LWATVJ1v55+9XAUV2nlVue uHPDmyCZ2MQ2ggYzKnC01QkVhZDTNlfHJnqdAJE0=
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [10.57.167.222] (93-32-135-54.ip33.fastwebnet.it [93.32.135.54]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:56:27 +0200 id 00000000005DC039.000000005172664B.0000132F
Message-ID: <51726641.7070606@tana.it>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:56:17 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130221 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is not described explicitly
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:56:45 -0000
Appendix H.2 should be merged into Section 8.4, as the reason to keep them separate was beaten out by Murray's reorganization. I mentioned that in my review. In addition, the combined text is not explicit in describing how reject-on-fail works when enabled. H.2 says "rejection can be done before the SMTP content is transferred." Explicit would be to to say that the negative response can be given to either the MAIL or the RCPT commands. Of course, it is also possible to reject after receiving the content. It is not typical of SPF implementations to do so. Early rejection may conflict with DMARC and similar policies, and the point of this issue is that an explicit note can save readers the time to puzzle it out themselves, and possibly avoid some misunderstanding.
- [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is not d… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] New issue: 8.4. Fail: rejection is n… S Moonesamy