-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
I'm parsing op= in pyspf. (Not doing anything with the options yet.)
As I understand it the syntax is:
"op" "=" name *( "," name )
Q1: should the options from an include domain be included?
Q2: should the set of options be cleared for redirect?
IMO, both answers should be NO.
I said this several times before.
The answer very obviously is that options need to specify their semantics
with regard to "include:" and "redirect=" explicitly.
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Should new modifiers define their own behaviour wrt redirect=, follow
exp= or not ? Your proposal would run into subtle problems for cases
a.example SPF "v=spf1 op=helo redirect=b.example"
b.example SPF "v=spf1 op=nohelo"
The draft says "helo" and "nohelo" MUST NOT be used together, they are
mutually exclusive. Let's stick to the exp= model, modifiers are local
(per record) and don't cross redirect=.
No. Unless you are willing to needlessly limit the potential semantics of
new options, this should not be globally defined for all options.
each modifier inventing its own rules can't be a good idea.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735