Julian Mehnle wrote:
Frank and others, could you please help me trying to make
the above items more specific and recall the other items
that were on Wayne's list?
One thing I recall clearly without digging through archives
is the CIDR ABNF. Wayne inteded to limit this to 1...32 and
similar for IPv6. No leading zeros, no 0, the works. IMHO
we can do without it. I've seen a draft (RFC ?) in the wild,
where /0 was clearly allowed.
Of course pointless for SPF, we have "all" (not exactly the
same as /0, the latter is bound to IPv4 or IPv6 in SPF), but
very long boring ABNF only to make sure that /33 and /40 are
syntax errors for IPv4 is not strictly necessary. Maybe it
is even undesirable.
The question of TXT != SPF is critical, but I'm noz sure if
that's an AUTH48 issue. Better get an ACK from the shepherd
(Mr. Hardie) _before_ trying to pull that stunt. After you
got an ACK here... ;-)
AUTH48 isn't for substantial changes, AFAIK, it's editorial,
nits, typos, fixing references, the works. Somebody posted
a short list with nits a few days ago here, made all sense -
purely editorial stuff.
There is no serios problem in the SPF spec. apart from the
TXT != SPF issue, therefore any other serious change is by
definition erroneous. Florian W. found that last bug months
ago - after months without convincing bug report. The spec.
is fine, don't panic. Anything we don't fix now we can fix
later in the future PS.
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
please go to