Re: SPFv3 proposal: rawfail result

On 04/Feb/11 12:43, Michael Deutschmann wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> IMHO there is enough confusion already with neutral and softfail.  If
>> we want to provide for more, and still not block, why don't we just
>> allow to set the "mark" value numerically, specifying the score that
>> should be added or subtracted?  E.g.
> 
> The distinction between rawfail and fail is not quantitative -- this is
> why I call it "rawfail" and not "hardfail".
> 
> Fail still means 100.00% confidence of rejection *if the validator is sure
> the message is not a forward*.

To me, it seems nearly impossible to formally define that difference
within the definition of the check_host function, in the face of
forgeries.