On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 07:27:08PM +0100, Phil White wrote:
Indeed - There is absolutely no reason at all why an underscore
cannot be used in a domain name (or any other charecter,
AFAIK).
However, we are using this in an SMTP context - that is why the
issue has been raised before.
That depends upon what is meant by "SMTP context". As I
understand SPF at present, there is no use of the underscores in the
actual SMTP transaction.
If SPF starts to pass information inside the SMTP transaction
(as some recent posts have suggested), then we will have to document
our changes/additions to SMTP, and we can easily document the use of
underscores at that time.
I can't comment about other mailers, but Exim will choke on any
query with an underscore unless it is told to 'relax' the
rulebook. Allowing the underscore would break a separate validity
check.
I am somewhat opposed to basing the design of SPF on quirks
that exist in some SMTP implementations. RCFs should drive
implmenetations. Implementations should not drive RFCs.
That said, it may be that the anti-underscore camp will win
this argument, simply because they care more. Even though I prefer
underscores, I freely admit the hypen approach will work.
Izzy
______________________________________________________________________
The pursuit of perfection is the enemy of progress.
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡