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

[Michael Thomas]

Dotzero wrote:
> 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.

I'm no expert on senderid or spf, but isn't the pertinent field for
senderid the PRA?

More broadly, if I got it wrong it only illustrates the problem I have
with the authres draft giving no guidance... this really needs to be
spelled out.

		Mike

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