[mail-vet-discuss] results should be method specific

[Dotzero]

On 2/27/08, Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>
> The current draft breaks out the meaning of the results into a method
> specific section. This is an improvement over the previous draft which
> didn't discuss them at all, but shoe-horning the global set of results
> into method specific results seems rather contrived and arbitrary.
> Why, for example, is an SSP all failure dkim-ssp=softfail? Worse is
> that the current draft doesn't allow for more results than are in
> that table. That means, for example, that SSP can't return NXDOMAIN
> when that's what it found.
>
> I'd like to propose that we name the results in a method specific
> way, as well as remove result codes that don't seem to actually
> even apply to that method.
>

<SNIP>

>
> 2.4.2.  SPF and Sender-ID Results
>
>    [SPF] and [SENDERID] results are indicated with the methods spf-method
>    and senderid-method respectively. The spf-method MUST
>    contain a ptype of ptype-spf whose value contains the [SMTP].mailfrom or
>    [SMTP].helo address. The senderid-method MUST return a ptype-senderid
>    specifying the header field found using PRA defined in [SENDERID]
>

Michael,

Was leaving out MFROM for senderid-method intentional? That is a valid
SPF2.0 record/set of results and would exclude PRA.

Just wondering. Need to read through the rest a few more times to let
it sink in.