-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
what's the problem with some implementations making a (potentially
bogus) TLD query (which is likely to fail), some mismatching the
mechanism, and some throwing PermError? The only real type of
case I can see is the "legit TLD used as host or MX domain name"
one, and as far as I can see, no TLD actually does it.
Besides, throwing PermError in this case is hardly justifiable
from what the spec says.
Fine, we're making progress, so you consider PermError as bad idea.
That leaves "ignore single labels" or "try to match as always".
The difference is, I am _interpreting_ the spec, whereas you are proposing
to _change_ it (by specifying things that weren't previously specified).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGB/MiwL7PKlBZWjsRAjQBAKCn/D1us7U1vyOiCHy7eRjV136dOACgtMIw
uLhr3qeK/e7Jr62cwNgqZaM=
=5ZJ8
-----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
subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735